Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

London Schools (Improvement)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she intends to meet members and officials of the Inner London Education Authority to discuss with them her proposals for improving primary and junior schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend has just approved, at a cost of over £2 million, 21 of the 24 projects submitted by the Authority for the replacement and improvement of primary schools as part of its proposals for the 1973–74 building programme.

Mr. Cox: I am grateful for that Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that we are only scratching at the problem that exists in Inner London, bearing in mind the deplorable conditions at many primary and junior schools? Is he aware that the I.L.E.A. wishes to make improvements but that, without financial support from the Government, it is unable to do so? May we be assured that there will be continuing discussions with the I.L.E.A. and that financial resources will be supplied by the Government to enable this problem to be tackled?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is a sour response to my Answer. I suggest that £2 million compared with £1·2 million the previous year, and 21 of the 24 projects proposed by the Authority having been approved, is a triumphant vindication of my right hon. Friend's priorities.

Higher Education

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will publish a Green Paper on the future development of higher education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This very complex subject is currently under thorough examination by my Department, but I cannot yet add to the Answer I gave to the Question by my hon. Friend on 4th March, 1971.—[Vol. 812, c. 496.]

Mr. Lane: May I wish my right hon. Friend and her colleagues a good holiday and thank her for the information about individual sectors of higher education that she has made available in recent months? Will she bear in mind that many people, including students and would-be students as well as taxpayers, are anxious to know more about the Government's plans for higher education as a whole and to engage in public discussion before final decisions are taken?

Mrs. Thatcher: I return my hon. Friend's good wishes. I know his great interest in this subject and I look forward to answering his Questions when we return after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Rhodes: Would the right hon. Lady be a little more responsive to her hon. Friend? Is she aware that there are considerable disparities in the provision of, for example, libraries, staff and accommodation even among students doing the same degree-level work in different sectors of higher education and that this is causing great concern in the profession? Will she conduct an overall review and possibly issue a Green Paper dealing with the whole question of higher education?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am aware that the polytechnics are not up to the standard of universities, but I announced a £22 million further education capital last December, and a further capital programme will be announced at the end of this year.

Mr. Faulds: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the polytechnics recently added their complaints to those of the


universities about the lack of Government guidance on the future development of the universities? Is it not time that this disaster-dazed Government stopped dithering and gave a clear and unequivocal outline of their plans to meet what will be a doubling of the number of youngsters with university qualifications in the next ten years?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have already made it clear that the University Grants Committee is gathering advice to give to me. I cannot reach a decision until I have received that advice; but I expect that a decision for the first year of the next quinquennium will be made by the end of this year.

School Children (Transport)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will set up a departmental committee to investigate all aspects of the problems associated with the transport of school children in rural areas.

Mrs. Thatcher: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries and I are in touch about the problems of transport in rural areas, but consideration of the issues involved is still at a very early stage.

Mr. Hicks: I am pleased to learn of these consultations. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that with the withdrawal of public bus services, the school bus is in many rural areas the only daily link between various communities? In reviewing this matter, will she see whether it is possible to incorporate one with the other, which would probably do away with the inflexible and, in my view, outdated concept of mileage limits?

Mrs. Thatcher: There is a later Question about mileage limits. I am well aware of the problems connected with the transport of children to and from school in rural areas. My Answer was meant to be sympathetic without entering too much into a commitment.

Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Lady does not wish to enter into a commitment, but meantime will she look at the situation in Nottinghamshire, where parents have been told that the transport fee is to be increased from £1 to £4 a term for children attending primary schools? This increase, together with the additional

cost of school meals, is a severe burden on parents with young families.

Mrs. Thatcher: This is a matter in which local education authorities have a good deal of discretion. From what the hon. Gentleman said, it appears that the local education authority in this case is using its discretion and he is complaining about the way in which it may be using it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if she will cancel the regulations regarding free transport of children to school in view of the increasing problems the two and three-mile rule is inflicting on parents, and institute free transport for school children of all ages.

Mrs. Thatcher: The two and three-mile walking distances are laid down in the Education Act. Legislation would be needed to change them and I have no present proposals on these lines.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend look at this again? Does she not agree that it is becoming one of the most urgent problems in rural areas, causing a great deal of hardship not only because of rising fares but because of the difficulties and problems with transport in these areas? Would she treat this as a matter of urgency and if possible make room for it in the legislative programme in the coming Session?

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities have discretionary powers to pay fares within these limits. They are used to varying extents, and if my hon. Friend has any problems in his own constituency perhaps he would consult his own local education authority.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Lady take it that on an issue of this kind she would have no difficulty in getting legislation to deal with it? Is she aware that in many rural areas this is becoming a very difficult problem? Does she appreciate that we would be only too glad, knowing that we might have done it ourselves, to rectify this position and give her all possible assistance?

Mrs. Thatcher: May I make it clear that over the statutory limits local education authorities have to pay fares; under these limits they may pay.

Mr. Longden: Could my right hon. Friend say how much this proposal would cost? As it must always be a question of priorities, perhaps books might come before free transport. Could not some of the money saved on feeding children's bodies be switched to feeding their minds?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have not been able to cost free transport by altering the limits. At present £25 million is spent on providing free transport, that is, both through the statutory payments over the limits and the discretionary payments within them. Even at present the sums are considerable.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Lady accept that this is now a problem not only in the rural areas but in the urban areas, particularly with school reorganisation, when children often have to catch two or three buses to get to school? Is she aware that with increasing fares it is becoming an added hardship? Will she accept that the method of calculating distances by education authorities often causes hardship because children do not fly like crows? The trouble with many education authorities is that they measure distance as the crow flies.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am afraid that the local education authorities are coming in for a pounding on this. They have powers to provide their own transport as well as to pay for transport for children. I accept that in some areas the problem has been aggravated by setting up very large schools where formerly there were a number of smaller schools serving the area.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment in the next Session.

Dyslexia

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive a report from the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children on the problem of dyslexia.

Mrs. Thatcher: The full Advisory Committee will be considering the findings

of the expert Sub-Committee which it constituted for this subject when it next meets at the beginning of October. I expect to receive its advice shortly thereafter.

Mr. Ashley: Leaving aside the lethargic manner in which dyslexia has been handled, is the right hon. Lady aware that there is growing anger and dismay at the lack of provision for dyslexic children in many parts of the country? Is she aware that when she receives the report she will be expected to take strong and vigorous action? In the meantime, will she consider sending a representative to Denmark, which has 150 special remedial classes and obviously has a great deal to teach us?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am seeking the best advice I can get on what provision should be made for these children. I think that it would be best to wait for the report before I enter into any commitment.

Voluntary Youth Organisations

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what machinery is to be set up for consultation between central Government and voluntary youth organisations at national level; and what will be the machinery at local level.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Good arrangements already exist for consulting the national bodies concerned. Under the new arrangements for financing Youth Service, village and community hall capital projects, local education authorities will be asked to inform the Department annually of those schemes they propose to assist. My right hon. Friend has encouraged the establishment of local joint committees where they do not already exist.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that voluntary youth organisations are disturbed at the lack of consultation about future policy regarding consultative machinery, partnership and capital and headquarters' grants? If local education authorities are to be made the final arbiters on capital grants, many worth-while projects will be snuffed out at local level.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has seen the


reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Sutcliffe: indicated dissent.

Mr. van Straubenzee: He indicates that he has not. I draw his attention to that answer because, in it, he will find that, in terms of capital grant in the interim period, it goes a long way to meeting the representations which have been made and which are the outcome of the very consultations he has asked us to undertake.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date she proposes to meet representatives of the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations to discuss government policy for the Youth Service.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My noble Friend met representatives of the Standing Conference and the National Councils of Social Service for both England and Wales on 29th July.

Mr. Sutcliffe: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply? Would he agree that it is important that voluntary youth organisations should know how they fit into the urban aid programme and how they can fit into the educational priority area proposals? Is it not important, when many young school-leavers are unemployed, to concentrate efforts on assisting them?

Mr. van Straubenzee: All of these matters are important. My hon. Friend's Question was directed towards consultation and I hope that my Answer shows that there is very real, and, on the Government side, meaningful consultation with the voluntary representatives.

Student Unions (Finance)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now make a statement on her consideration of the misuse of funds and other irregularities by members of student unions; and of the future thereof.

Mrs. Thatcher: I now have a great deal of information about the provision and use of student union funds but I

am not yet ready to make a further statement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we much appreciate her interest in this matter but that if it is left too long people will begin to take it for granted that union funds can be misdirected to finance subversive demonstrations and that political favouritism will begin to be recognised as normal? Will she not leave it too long but press on with her good work?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the misuse is comparatively small but quite large matters of principle are nevertheless involved. I would like any changes we propose if possible to be done by agreement with all the parties concerned.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has received the report of the Vice-Chancellor's Committee on student union finance; what action is to be taken; and whether the report will be published.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has given me access to information supplied to them by universities on the financing of student unions, but has made no report. I am still studying this information.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say why no report has been made? In view of the public anxiety on this matter, surely, there should be a report and it should be published.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is not a question of a report. We asked for certain information, which we now have. It reveals very different conditions prevailing in very different institutions, and it is this factor which is making a simple solution difficult—if that is not too Irish.

Teachers in Further Education (Pay)

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she has taken to obtain an early settlement of the salary claim by teachers in further education in view of the recent pay award to schoolteachers.

Mrs. Thatcher: A meeting of the Burnham Further Education Committee


was arranged as soon as practicable after the arbitrators made their award for school teachers. At the meeting on 2nd and 3rd August, the teachers, whose claim was for about 37 per cent., rejected the management panel's final offer and the matter is now referred to arbitration.

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Lady review the procedure for negotiations on the pay of teachers in further education, so that in future they do not have to suffer the delay which they have suffered on this occasion whenever their colleagues who teach in schools do not immediately accept an offer made to them?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not normally review procedures while a claim is still being considered. When the claim is settled, anyone who wishes to make representations to me will, of course, be welcome and I will listen to what they have to say.

Free Milk

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now state what proposals she has for guiding education authorities and their medical officers in the certification of pupils in need of free milk in school, so that the preventative aspects can be fully taken into account.

Mr. van Straubenzee: A circular will shortly be issued to local education authorities on the new arrangements for free school milk to be introduced from next September. This will include guidance on administrative aspects of medical certification, but medical opinions will be the responsibility of school medical officers.

Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), when Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, told a deputation from Glasgow City Council that the preventive aspect would be taken into account? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland told my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) in a letter that when a child's health was considered to be at risk a medical officer might give a certificate? Will the hon. Gentleman consider putting these things into the circular?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I will consider all these matters. The hon. Gentleman was an assiduous and effective attender at our debates on the Education (Milk) Bill at every stage, and he will recall that those are almost exactly the same words as I used. I used the phrase "medically at risk", and this met with some approval by medically-qualified Members of the House.

Mr. Buchan: But in the letter which the Secretary of State for Scotland, presumably on behalf of the Government, wrote to me, he made it clear that, first, a local authority could employ general practitioners as temporary medical officers of health in order to undertake a full-scale medical examination of all children in the area, and, secondly, that it would be open to the local authority to decide that "health at risk" was a preventive factor and that milk could be allocated to all the children on that basis? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not enter into matters arising outside England and Wales, and I should be sharply criticised by the hon. Gentleman if I attempted to do so. I have explained the position fully as it relates to England and Wales.

Classes (Size)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to ensure that governors and managers of schools have access to information about the size of classes in their schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I should expect that normal consultation with head teachers would enable managers and governors to have any information they wish about their schools.

Mr. Willey: While not wanting to persuade the right hon. Lady to interfere unduly in local affairs, may I ask whether she will look at this matter, because local councillors and others responsible for schools should have access to information they require to carry out their duties? Therefore, will she use her good offices to see that councillors and others in Sunderland have this information about the size of classes?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have looked into this case. I am sure that if either the right


hon. Gentleman or I were a manager or governor we should have no difficulty in getting information. Managers and governors must have access to information which they need properly to carry out their duties—let there be no doubt about that—and they should be able to get it without recourse to a Secretary of State.

Independent Sector in Education

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government on a private sector in education.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Government continue to believe in a strong and healthy independent sector in education.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the right hon. Lady recall the rather amazing speech she made at Ellerslie Girls School, Malvern, on 19th March, about which she has had a great deal of correspondence with the Malvern Young Socialists, in which she said that the private sector of education was necessary in order to prevent abuse which would arise if there were a monopoly of State education? Can she tell us what abuses she thinks would be likely to arise? Can she explain herself?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am a great believer in the private sector of education. It is a great defence against a possible monopoly, and monopolies I believe are bad and often confer great powers on Governments which they should not have.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I used to attend Haileybury College on Saturday mornings—delivering meat? Having now met again in this House some of the pupils whom I used to meet then, I have come to regard their attendance at such a college as a sheer waste of time on their part. Is it not time to end privilege in education, to abolish the public schools and to bring them into the State system?

Mrs. Thatcher: My answer to that is, "So what?". My father used to serve in the tuckshop at Oundle, but he did not come out with a chip on his shoulder.

Primary Schools (Derbyshire)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increased allocation of funds she

will make for the replacement or renovation of primary schools in Derbyshire following the recent announcement of increased funds of £100 million available for public works this winter.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Only the districts served by the Alfreton and Heanor employment exchanges are assisted areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told the Derbyshire local education authority that she is prepared to increase their minor works allocation by £25,000 both this year and next, and that she hopes that these additional resources will be used for primary and special schools. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is also ready to approve under the Urban Programme the provision of a nursery unit near Alfreton.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but does he realise that Derbyshire is one of the counties with the greatest number of old and out-of-date primary schools and that, although the help he has announced will be very well received—and I am grateful for it—there is still an enormous amount to do?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. I understand that. My right hon. Friend is not in a position this morning to announce the major programme for primary replacement and the design list for 1973–74, but I hope that it will not be long delayed.

Mr. Whitehead: What proportion of this delayed largesse will go to the County Borough of Derby, which also is in Derbyshire, although it is a separate education authority?

Mr. van Straubenzee: My answer referred only to the assisted areas covered by the employment exchange districts.

Nursery School Places

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery school places are at present provided by each local education authority in England and Wales; and what percentage these figures represent of the population in each area aged under five years.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Meacher: In view of the crucial and, perhaps, overriding influence of the pre-school years and the still disgraceful lack of provision of nursery places, will the Minister institute a crash programme of nursery school building on priority criteria like the Plowden E.P.A. scheme?

Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. The essence of good administration in these matters is priority—some admirable examples of that priority working out have been given already in Questions today—and the Government have no intention of varying the priorities which they have already laid down.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind that it was one of the Conservative Party's election pledges to increase the number of nursery schools, will my hon. Friend say whether, in the context of the figures he is about to publish, he is satisfied that the rural areas are having a fair allocation?

Mr. van Straubenzee: With respect, I suggest that it might be helpful if my hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the figures, which, as he will understand, are very extensive. There is a certain discrepancy between various types of area.

Dame Joan Vickers: In making his surveys, will my hon. Friend let us know how many places are supplied by voluntary organisations?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall gladly see whether I can provide that information for my hon. Friend.

Following are the figures:


Local Education Authority
Number of pupils under 5 in maintained nursery schools and classes in January, 1970
Figures in column 1 expressed as a percentage of births in 1965 and 1966



(1)
(2)


Bedfordshire
251
2·1


Berkshire
879
4·8


Buckinghamshire
1,855
9·0


Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely
889
9·4


Cheshire
295
0·8


Cornwall
66
0·6


Cumberland
101
1·3


Derbyshire
765
2·8


Devon
47
0·3


Dorset
352
3·4


Durham
2,832
8·2


Essex
632
1·6





Local Education Authority
Number of pupils under 5 in maintained nursery schools and classes in January, 1970
Figures in column I expressed as a percentage of births in 1965 and 1966



(1)
(2)


Gloucestershire
85
0·4


Hampshire
60
0·2


Herefordshire
91
1·9


Hertfordshire
2,523
8·3


Huntingdon and Peterborough
231
3·3


Isle of Wight
—
—


Isle of Scilly
—
—


Kent
410
0·9


Lancashire
3,387
4·0


Leicestershire
33
0·2


Lincolnshire—


Holland
13
0·4


Kesteven
106
2·0


Lindsey
146
1·1


Norfolk
372
2·8


Northamptonshire
230
2·0


Northumberland
32
0·2


Nottinghamshire
207
0·9


Oxfordshire
274
2·9


Rutland
9
0·9


Shropshire (Salop)
223
1·9


Somerset
169
0·9


Staffordshire
831
2·8


Suffolk, East
187
2·4


Suffolk, West
70
1·3


Surrey
889
2·8


Sussex, East
285
2·5


Sussex, West
356
2·8


Warwickshire
549
2·6


Westmorland
208
10·2


Wiltshire
98
0·5


Worcestershire
143
0·9


Yorkshire—


East Riding
59
0·8


North Riding
100
0·6


West Riding
3,161
5·0


Barnsley
913
31·3


Barrow-in-Furness
177
7·8


Bath
99
3·9


Birkenhead
348
6·3


Birmingham
2,712
6·3


Blackburn
343
9·6


Blackpool
—
—


Bolton
1,247
22·7


Bootle
103
3·2


Bournemouth
26
0·7


Bradford
1,259
11·3


Brighton
657
13·6


Bristol
2,197
14·8


Burnley
834
33·0


Burton-upon-Trent
83
4·0


Bury
49
1·9


Canterbury
30
2·8


Carlisle
—
—


Chester
183
8·3


Coventry
581
4·4


Darlington
516
17·9


Derby
479
10·0


Dewsbury
580
32·5


Doncaster
286
10·0


Dudley
225
3·7


Eastbourne
—
—


Exeter
68
2·3

Local Education Authority
Number of pupils under 5 in maintained nursery schools and classes in January, 1970
Figures in column 1 expressed as a percentage of births in 1965 and 1966



(1)
(2)


Gateshead
96
2·6


Gloucester
32
1·1


Great Yarmouth
84
5·5


Grimsby
304
8·4


Halifax
369
11·0


Hartlepool
200
6·3


Hastings
57
3·1


Huddersfield
158
3·2


Ipswich
79
1·8


Kingston upon Hull
478
4·2


Leeds
377
2·1


Leicester
2,716
26·8


Lincoln
164
6·2


Liverpool
1,643
5·9


Luton
396
5·6


Manchester
4,829
19·7


Newcastle upon Tyne
196
2·3


Northampton
373
8·2


Norwich
232
6·2


Nottingham
1,389
11·5


Oldham
242
5·9


Oxford
732
20·9


Plymouth
126
1·7


Portsmouth
91
1·3


Preston
98
2·5


Reading
571
11·5


Rochdale
492
15·2


Rotherham
219
6·8


St. Helens
191
5·3


Salford
624
10·8


Sheffield
1,347
8·0


Solihull
—
—


Southampton
181
2·4


Southend-on-Sea
57
1·2


Southport
456
20·7


South Shields
108
2·9


Stockport
275
5·3


Stoke-on-Trent
2,154
24·2


Sunderland
238
3·4


Teesside
364
3·2


Torbay
83
2·5


Tynemouth
231
8·4


Wakefield
197
10·3


Wallasey
65
1·8


Walsall
256
3·9


Warley
514
9·4


Warrington
414
14·6


West Bromwich
546
9·0


Wigan
238
9·1


Wolverhampton
581
5·7


Worcester
74
3·0


York
228
6·8


Barking
237
5·0


Barnet
655
6·8


Bexley
165
2·2


Brent
541
4·2


Bromley
75
0·8


Croydon
257
2·3


Ealing
1,128
101


Enfield
763
9·0


Haringey
723
6·5


Harrow
165
2·5


Havering
75
0·9


Hillingdon
567
7·4

St. Marylebone School (Merger)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received in respect of the Inner London Education Authority's proposal to amalgamate the St. Marylebone Grammar School with the Rutherford Secondary Modern School.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend has received letters from parents of boys attending St. Marylebone School, organisations connected with the school, and local residents.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, if this scheme is approved, it will result in a comprehensive school on three separate sites in old and inadequate buildings, and if the merger is forced through without the provision of new buildings it will have the effect of sacrificing the educational interests of the children of my constituents to the doctrinal prejudices of the I.L.E.A.?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that those are all matters which will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend,


under whose guidance Section 13 procedures are no mere formality. But my hon. Friend will not expect me to make a pronouncement before the statutory period has elapsed after the notice, which was published on 18th June.

Mr. Lipton: Why is the Department taking so long to come to a conclusion about the carefully considered plans of the Inner London Education Authority? The delay is having a most unsettling effect on pupils, teachers and the whole of the educational structure in London.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman have heard me when I said that the I.L.E.A. itself and the governors—for the governors come into this, too—published their statutory notice on 18th June. The two-month period starts to run from that date.

Concorde

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research the research councils are undertaking on the Concorde project.

Mrs. Thatcher: Applied aeronautical research is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Research Councils have not been directly involved in work on Concorde. They have, however, contributed indirectly: the Medical Research Council has collaborated on decompression studies, and the Science Research Council has been consulted on the use of computers and on radiation hazards at high altitudes.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed Answer, but I ask her to bear in mind that Concorde represents a unique opportunity for young engineering apprentices to study at practical first-hand the developments which will, obviously, in the next 20 or 30 years, go to keep this country hopefully ahead in the technological race. Will she, therefore, see it as her responsibility to the young people of this country to do all she can to encourage and foster the project?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not sure that I could quite enter into that full commitment. So far as we can derive scientific observations from it, we are doing our level best both to help and to take advantage

of the opportunities which it offers.

School Meals

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will take steps to encourage schools to offer a more varied menu as a means of ensuring that more children have a meal at school.

Mrs. Thatcher: The planning of menus for the school meal within overall nutritional standards laid down by my Department is a matter for individual authorities, but a choice of dishes is now a common feature of the school meal, particularly in secondary schools. I do not think that any further action on my part is required.

Mr. Fox: I thank my right hon. Friend, but I venture to disagree that a choice of menu is a more or less accepted thing, and in too many schools the fall-off in school dinners taken——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Fox: I shall not disagree, but I would ask that any encouragement to extend the choice should be welcomed. In my constituency, schools are now serving more dinners than ever before——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: We have an informal inquiry in the Department, about the school meals service, and I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the main reason for the decrease in the take-up of school meals is the increase in price and nothing much to do with the menu? Will she, therefore, do everything she can to ensure that every school provides facilities for children who wish to take sandwiches and who cannot afford the new price?

Mrs. Thatcher: There is usually a fall-off in the take-up of school meals after an increase in price, whether that increase is imposed by a Conservative or by a Labour Government. I have put out a circular about sandwiches and the provision which we should like to see made


for children who eat sandwiches on school premises.

Mr. Faulds: Even if a varied menu attracts more children to school meals, does not the right hon. Lady realise that they will not be those for whom the meal is too dear and who at the same time do not qualify for free meals?

Mrs. Thatcher: An increasing number will qualify for free meals when the income scales are raised yet again in September.

Language Laboratories

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will issue a circular advising local authorities on the use that can be made of language laboratory facilities in schools and colleges of further education during holidays.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The use of language laboratories during holidays rests with the local education authorities and colleges concerned. The Department has in recent years issued administrative guidance encouraging them to make the maximum use of their educational plant and equipment.

Mr. Clarke: In view of the increasing demand for this sort of facility in industry and commerce, would my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that there are still cases where, in universities, colleges of education and schools very expensive equipment lies unused during the academic holidays? Will he continue to take an interest in the subject and carry on giving the guidance referred to in his Answer?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes Sir, within the limits of the powers of the Department, particularly in relation to universities, which are obviously under a quite different head. It is not just a question of making facilities available, however desirable. With highly expensive equipment of this kind the provision of staff is often a limiting factor.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no laboratory facilities will protect either himself or his right hon. Friends from the anger of the parents of the thousand children in my constituency whom they have deprived of school meals?

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is the sort of remark that makes one think how much better it would have been if the hon. Gentleman had remained upstairs.

School Books

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can now give detailed figures of the number of local education authorities who spent less than £1 per head on school books for each child in primary schools during the year 1969–70, and which they were.

Mr. van Straubenzee: According to statistics compiled by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, and the Society of County Treasurers there were 71 such authorities: four counties and 56 county boroughs in England; two counties and three county boroughs in Wales; and six Outer London boroughs. With permission, I will circulate their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend recognise that those education authorities which now spend less than £1 per head on school books for each child in primary schools have their educational priorities wrong? As there is a widespread disparity between areas over the provision of school books, will he consider issuing a circular to try to stimulate those authorities with the worst record?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It may well be that my hon. Friend's Question and the details which will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT will go some way towards drawing attention to these matters. I am sure he knows that in the rate support grant settlement for 1971–72 and the following year there were improvement factors of 3½ per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively for non-teaching costs, which is a direct incentive.

Mr. Marks: Is 3½ per cent. sufficient to cope with today's rising costs? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some authorities include in this figure for books the hire of transport for physical education and swimming and all kinds of things? Is it not time we had the facts about expenditure on books and equipment? Is he satisfied that the rate support grant is being properly spent?

Mr. van Straubenzee: All of us are concerned about the provision of books, but the hon. Gentleman has probably overlooked that what I was talking about was the improvement factor, and those figures are a real incentive.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need to give a clear lead to education authorities to ensure that they adopt accounting methods which make meaningful comparisons possible?

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures I am circulating he will find that very meaningful comparisons are possible.

Following is the information:


Local Authorities who, in 1969–70, spent les than £1 per head on Text Books in Primar Schools.


County Boroughs


Barnsley
Leeds


Barrow
Leicester


Bath
Lincoln


Birkenhead
Liverpool


Birmingham
Manchester


Blackburn
Merthyr Tydfil


Blackpool
Newcastle upon Tyne


Bolton
Newport


Bootle
Norwich


Bradford
Oldham


Brighton
Oxford


Bristol
Plymouth


Burnley
Portsmouth


Burton-on-Trent
Preston


Canterbury
Reading


Cardiff
St. Helens


Carlisle
Salford


Chester
Solihull


Coventry
Sunderland


Derby
Swansea


Dewsbury
Tynemouth


Eastbourne
Wakefield


Exeter
Wallasey


Great Yarmouth
Warley


Grimsby
Warrington


Halifax
West Bromwich


Hartlepool
Wigan


Hastings
Wolverhampton


Huddersfield
York


Ipswich



London Boroughs


Barking
Enfield


Bexley
Kingston


Bromley
Merton


Counties


Sussex West
Lanes.


Warwick
Pembroke


Kent
Glamorgan

Educational Priority Areas

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

plans she has for further help to educational priority areas and for research into their problems.

Mrs. Thatcher: Further support will be given through the urban programme to the four local authorities' projects initiated under the original action research programme in educational priority areas. The Social Science Research Council has also offered a grant, of which my Department will pay half, for some additional research in this field by Dr. A. H. Halsey.

Mr. Lane: As special projects in these areas have already proved valuable, will my right hon. Friend continue to look kindly on the possibility of increasing their scope as widely and generously as possible?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that these projects have proved very valuable indeed, and when Dr. Halsey's work is finished on evaluating some of the particular activities under these projects, I would like to look further at the possibilities.

Metrication

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date she expects that her Department will have adopted metrication for administrative purposes.

Mrs. Thatcher: The construction industry is adopting the metric system, and in consequence bodies responsible for educational building have been asked by my Department to see that projects expected to start on or after 1st April, 1972, are designed in metric measurements.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend realise that metrication is one area in which many people hope that her Ministry will give a lead by way of syllabuses? Does she realise that educational publishers in particular are in grave difficulties trying to foresee Government policy?

Mrs. Thatcher: A circular was issued some time ago, but before deciding further on what to do we are waiting for the White Paper on metrication.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that the Government are endangering the planning of school curricula and examinations by being somewhat less than clear in their policy


simply, as we all know, to appease some of the backwoodsmen scattered behind her? Is she aware that the N.U.T. has complained about the effect of this uncertainty?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have been very clear about our education policy in the circular to which I referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the provision of Harrier aircraft for the Royal Navy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): I cannot add to the substance of the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 17th June. Our study of the provision of Harrier aircraft for maritime use continues. The House will be informed of further progress.—[Vol. 819, c. 122–3.]

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that a comparatively large order from the United States Navy depends on the confidence shown by my right hon. Friend in the maritime use of this aircraft? Is it not also a fact that this aircraft has been flying for well over six years? Surely there has been time for adequate maritime evaluation. When will my hon. Friend make a statement?

Mr. Kirk: As soon as possible.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a very serious problem of confidence? Unless the Government show their confidence not only in the Harrier but in other British aircraft projects, how can we expect other countries and overseas airlines to take seriously projects in which the Government are involved?

Mr. Kirk: Equally, unless the Government could satisfy themselves absolutely of the value of this plane in the maritime rôle there would not be much point in buying it.

Fishery Protection Duties

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are his plans regarding measures for fisheries

protection; how many ships, aircraft and helicopters are available; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Kirk: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 3rd August.—[Vol. 822, c. 290.]

Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North-East Sea Fisheries Committee held a highly successful conference at Scarborough last Saturday which was attended by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and myself? There were present skippers from the Tweed to the Humber—from Filey, Hartlepools and elsewhere. They were unanimous in their belief that the existing facilities are inadequate. With the spectre looming up of our entry to the Common Market, and the double spectre of the Icelandic limits being increased to 50 miles, we shall need many more vessels to protect our fishermen.

Mr. Kirk: With the six mine counter-measures vessels which we use at the moment, 160 arrests have been made since the present limits were laid down in 1964. That would seem to show a pretty satisfactory state of affairs.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his Department has a big part to play in whatever is going on concerning fisheries and the Common Market? I should like his Department to be fully involved. I hope that he will not try to get out of it.

Mr. Kirk: The question of fisheries and the Common Market is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food. Our job is to protect the fishing limits which are laid down.

Computerised Defence Information Systems

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy on the awarding of contracts for computerised defence information systems.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The policy within the Ministry of Defence follows Government policy, as stated in the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Civil Service Department, to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the


Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) on 2nd March.—[Vol. 812, c. 419–20.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is the noble Lord aware that software is one of the few areas of computer technology in which this country has a potential superiority over the United States? Following the recent announcement of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace that the Government intend to give more contracts to I.C.L. for computer hardware, would it not make far more sense if, instead of giving defence computer software contracts to American firms, we gave far more programming, peripheral and bureau activities to British software companies and not to American ones?

Lord Balniel: As the hon. Gentleman knows from an answer to a Question asked by himself, the Minister for Aerospace said that the question of software procurement is under consideration at the moment. However, I take his point.

European Economic Community

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether it is his intention to adjust the retired pay and pensions of former members of Her Majesty's Forces to compensate for any increase in prices resulting from British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Kirk: Provision is now being made similar to that in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1971, to protect Armed Forces pensioners against rises in the cost of living by a system of biennial reviews which will maintain the original purchasing power of qualified pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my hon. Friend aware that if certain of his right hon. Friends would follow his example and protect the more vulnerable sections of the community against possible price changes it would make much easier public acceptance of entry to the E.E.C.?

Mr. Kirk: The Ministry of Defence is always in the vanguard of progress.

Supersonic Aircraft (Pilots' Age)

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the maximum age at which Royal Air Force pilots fly supersonic aircraft.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): There is no medical reason why pilots should not fly supersonic aircraft up to the age of retirement (55). But in practice, for reasons other than age, very few Royal Air Force pilots are required to fly supersonic aircraft beyond the age of 45.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful for that reply because it confirms what I have long believed—that there is no need for feeling that supersonic flight is in any way weird and wonderful.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received urging that, following British entry to the European Community, he should recommend that Parliament should decide, as it is entitled to do under the Community Treaties, that Great Britain's delegations to the European Parliament should be directly elected by the British electorate.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. The present procedure for selecting delegates to the European Parliament is by nomination by the national Parliaments from among their members. Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome provides for the drawing up of proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage. As a member of the Community, we would participate in the work towards agreement on such proposals, which must meet with the unanimous approval of the Council of Ministers of the Community.

Mr. Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As the Council of Ministers seems likely to put forward recommendations in 1972, are any consultations to take place between the British Government and the Council on the question of strengthening the European Parliament? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are fully committed to taking a leading part in strengthening the democratic nature of the European Community once Britain becomes a member? Does he envisage direct elections as being part of that strengthening process?

The Prime Minister: On the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he is perfectly correct. The first part is covered by the arrangements for consultation between the Community and ourselves on any action which it may wish to take during the interim period before full membership is achieved.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Prime Minister make a deep study of the problems, especially the financial problems, which will arise if we have in this country constituencies of about 1½ million people?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has much experience of these matters, that that would produce very real problems. But they would not be limited to this country. It would produce real problems for all members of the Community. But this is looking rather far ahead. I know that some members of the Community, particularly the Italians, have always supported direct election to the European Parliament. On the other hand, there are very powerful democratic bodies in the world which have achieved their position through indirect elections, such as the American Senate.

Mr. Peel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that for some considerable time to come the Parliamentarians in the European Parliament should be members of their own sovereign Parliaments as well?

The Prime Minister: That is a major question on which the arguments can be fairly finely balanced. As far as one can foresee, the members of the European Parliament will come from their national Parliaments. But there is a provision in the Treaty of Rome which enables the European Parliament to move towards direct election if the Council of Ministers agrees.

Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to the original Question, is it not far more important that before the Prime Minister considers direct election by the British electorate to the European Parliament, the British electorate should be given the opportunity to pronounce on the actual entry and the entry terms, and now that one of the two main parties in the State is opposed to the Prime Minister's policy on this matter, is there

not a clear and urgent case for a general election before this House is asked to vote upon the matter?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICIES

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial broadcast on the relationship between his economic and social policies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. Our policies form a coherent pattern which is already well known and appreciated.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that his economic policy of making people stand on their own two feet has in the last year brought 15 million people to their knees by forcing them on to means tests? Does he accept that the Government have transferred £600 million from the poor to the rich at the expense of creating a new Poor Law?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept either the hon. Gentleman's figures or his statements.

Mr. Rost: If my right hon. Friend makes a broadcast on this subject, will he emphasise that for the Leader of the Opposition deliberately to encourage industrial anarchy by a sit-in does nothing to solve the problems but is merely an act of irresponsibility which may sell more memoirs?

The Prime Minister: I must leave that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Prentice: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it makes economic sense to take purchasing power out of the pockets of the sick and unemployed by increasing welfare and social payments at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acting to reflate the economy?

The Prime Minister: The Government have raised the limits under which the social benefits are paid, and this is beneficial to more people.

Mr. Thorpe: As the economic and social policies of the Government are so closely related, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the economic policies


have caused the high rate of unemployment or whether the high rate of unemployment has dictated the economic policies?

The Prime Minister: It has been constantly explained in economic debates that the purpose of the economic policies is to encourage an expanding economy. We cannot make people more efficient or more independent; we can only give them the inducements to become so. It is as a result of economic growth, at which we are aiming, that better social service benefits can be paid. Better social benefits cannot be paid by supporting bankrupt companies.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Referring to the Prime Minister's reply to the supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why at a time when, as my right hon. Friend said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds it necessary to reflate the economy, the Government are pushing through cuts in school meals, school milk and a whole range of issues of this sort?

The Prime Minister: Because it is enabling us to put on a permanent basis an improvement in the social services which only the State can bring about. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to improve primary school building or hospital building programmes, but he should not be so envious of us because we have done it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL DOCUMENTS

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the coordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Health and Social Security, with respect to the collection of information they require for the issue of different types of personal documents for which they are responsible.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But if the hon. Gentleman has any problems or proposals to make in this regard I will gladly consider them.

Dr. Gilbert: In the light of the Observer report of 3½ weeks ago that officials of the Home Office were considering the introduction of a system of

national identity cards and, furthermore, after discussions with officials in Brussels, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no intention at any time to introduce such a system into this country? This is one aspect of Europeanism which, whatever the administrative convenience involved, is totally obnoxious to the overwhelming majority of the people of this country.

The Prime Minister: I understand that that was dealt with at the time, and that it was said that there was no truth in the report which had been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand on measures and machinery to strengthen their ties with the United Kingdom and Western Europe.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that new measures or machinery are needed to ensure that our ties with Canada, Australia and New Zealand remain strong. We believe that the Commonwealth will benefit from the greater strength which membership of an enlarged Community will bring to Britain, as well as from closer links with Western Europe as a whole.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Knowing Australia as he does, was not my right hon. Friend saddened by the appearance of a breach arising from misunderstandings over the Brussels negotiations? Does he consider that it would be desirable to meet the Australian Prime Minister to restore the proper relationship? Since these nations mentioned in my Question are European nations, would it not be the intention of the Government of the United Kingdom in Europe to forge and retain the economic links and not to abandon the advantages we can get to the Americans and the Japanese?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the statement in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. He asked about a meeting with the Prime Ministers. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has been here recently, and we had very full talks about the European


question. The Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia both know that they would be very welcome in this country. The Australian Prime Minister has not been able to fix the date at which he will be able to come. I hope it will be possible for the Canadian Prime Minister to visit this country.

Mr. Whitehead: If such consultations were to take place, would the Prime Minister draw the attention of the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand to the very great success of the Canadian Government in the diversification of exports which meant that imports from Canada to this country, which were a serious problem in the 1962 negotiations, were a negligible problem in 1971?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is right. I think that credit must also be given to New Zealand because the latest figures show a very considerable diversification of markets by New Zealand, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-WEST REGION

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now completed his consideration of the memorandum sent to him by the North-West Industrial Development Association; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marks: asked the Prime Minister when he will reply to the memorandum he has received from the North-West Industrial Development Association.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave last Tuesday to Questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry).—[Vol. 822, c. 288.]

Mr. Kaufman: Would the Prime Minister give a firm date for his meeting with the North-West Industrial Development Association? Is he aware that with one breadwinner out of 18 in the North-West unemployed, with 42,000 redundancies declared in the past year in the North-West, with a further batch in my own constituency only last week, with what yesterday's Manchester Evening News described as a "crisis in youth employment", with the Government ban on

new industry coming into greater Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—these are very serious matters—and with a seven-week wait before the Minister of Trade and Industry comes to look for himself, urgent action is needed if a deep and worsening problem is not to be turned into a major plight?

The Prime Minister: A date is now being considered and I will let the association know as soon as it is firm.

Sir R. Cary: While we welcome the announcement made recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will help to improve employment generally throughout the country, is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed closing of the Irlam steel works will mean an additional 5,000 unemployed in the Manchester area and that this remains a desperately serious problem?

The Prime Minister: Yes. This is, of course, a matter for the British Steel Corporation, and it is important to recognise——

Mr. William Hamilton: Stand on your own feet.

The Prime Minister: It was the hon. Member's party which set up the Steel Corporation, and hon. Members opposite have constantly demanded that it be left to make its own decisions. They cannot have it both ways. When they set it up, they did so with the objective of achieving rationalisation of the steel industry. So far as the actual plans are concerned, there are in two stages, the second one of which will not begin to take effect until 1973.

Mr. Marks: When eventually the Prime Minister sails up the Mersey and possibly the Manchester Ship Canal, will he take note of the problems of pollution and dereliction in that area, for it is greater there than in the part of the country which he knows better, and that a vast amount of public expenditure is needed and that this competitive society of which he is so proud does not help?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is well aware of this, but I think anybody who has experience of that area knows exactly how great the


problem is because of the industrial complex which surrounds Manchester. This is a matter to which attention ought to be given and to which the local authorities are giving attention.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend bear in the mind that the decision to go ahead with the River Dee barrage and help the expansion of Shotton steel works would be a great boost for people on Merseyside?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot make any statement about this matter today.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Prime Minister bring this meeting forward to the earliest possible opportunity? Is he aware that in the town of Kirby, on Merseyside, there are 20 per cent. unemployed and that those leaving school have no opportunity whatsoever of getting employment? Is it not clear that this is a crisis situation for these youngsters and other people in the area? Is he also aware that the Roman Catholic authorities have written to all Merseyside Members of Parliament drawing attention to this plight, and that this is a pretty clear indication of the deep feelings which there are in the area about this matter?

The Prime Minister: Merseyside is bound to be affected by the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken and which were so warmly welcomed at the meeting of N.E.D.C. yesterday, both by the T.U.C. and by the C.B.I. So far as Merseyside is concerned, I am well acquainted with its problems and also its potentialities. If the hon. Member will do everything he can to improve industrial relations on Merseyside he will do the best service he can for his own area.

Mr. Bray: When my right hon. Friend does reply to this memorandum, will he remind the North-West Industrial Development Association that Government support for the North-West is the highest on record and that a great deal of the dereliction is being rapidly moved at a higher rate than ever before, and that self-help is worth a great deal more than self-pity?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced details of

the new slum clearance subsidy very recently in the House, and that will help Merseyside.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I call one other hon. Member from the back benches first.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Prime Minister look at the unemployment figures in North-East Lancashire and if he does, will he realise that we on this side are not exaggerating when we say that they are absolutely deplorable? Is he aware that between January and this month the Government have set up something of a record in this area in that unemployment has doubled—which is unique? Will he not be so complacent in his answers?

The Prime Minister: I have already expressed understanding of the position on Merseyside, but Merseyside must also recognise how much is being done, with help, to produce the answer.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I was not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answers whether he was intending to meet the association in London or in Lancashire. If he has not made up his mind on that, will he recognise the virtues of seeing this problem for himself on the ground in the different parts of the North-East, Manchester, Irlam and the Merseyside development areas? While I should always be very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to my constituency, in which Kirby is situated, is he aware that he cannot ride out of the Kirby problem by talking about industrial relations? Is he aware that almost every time I have been in this area this year I have heard of further notices of redundancy, factory closures and transfer of work from Kirby to Spain—and I am awaiting a reply from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry into the circumstances of that. Is he further aware that Kirby, which has kept the most meticulous record of juvenile employment possibilities since the four comprehensive schools were established several years ago, this year finds the situation far worse than it has ever been since that township was formed? In addition, job opportunities for the large number of children who stayed on at school are now


worse than they have been in this generation?

The Prime Minister: My proposal was to meet the association in Lancashire, which will give me the opportunity of talking to the association on the spot about exactly these problems.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a growing habit of Ministers to dodge making statements which they have promised to make by answering Written Questions, with the result that there is no opportunity for hon. Members to question the statement made.
In particular, I wish to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter relating to the shipbuilding industry credit guarantees. Months ago the House was promised a statement before the recess. This promise was repeated last week, but the Question has now been answered in writing, so that hon. Members have no opportunity to question it. Can you give any guidance on how the House can be protected in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I think the answer is, "No". It is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said has been noted.

OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of drawing your attention, to this, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to rule on the following matter, which I think is a point of order. It will be seen from HANSARD that a Minister gave a deliberate lie in replying to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham):
Mr. RIPPON: I had nothing to do with the negotiations to enter the Community. The hon. Gentleman can say it is a coincidence in the sense that the agreement would have been reached in any event."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 1065.]
It was announced by the Prime Minister that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was responsible for negotiating the terms of entry into the E.E.C., and he has been to my knowledge negotiating

for some months, indeed years. Most hon. Members thought that he was negotiating. If he is now saying that he was not negotiating, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who was negotiating. It seems that my hon. Friends are right, and no one was conducting the negotiations in the British interest.

Mr. Speaker: I dislike the use of the word "lie", which is not a parliamentary expression. Has the hon. Gentleman given the right hon. and learned Gentleman notice that he would raise this matter?

Mr. Lewis: I have no responsibility for what is said in HANSARD. It is in HANSARD. I am referring to HANSARD and asking for an explanation. It is surely the Minister's job to see that he gives the correct answer? If he has given the correct answer, he has said that he had nothing to do with the negotiations for entry into the Community. I have not said that; he has said it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been enough of this. It would have been more courteous of the hon. Gentleman to have drawn the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to this. Obviously, there is some mistake, but it is not a matter of order.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. I understand the hon. Gentleman did not give notice to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am not complaining about that, although I think he might have done so. I understand that, as sometimes happens, the word "not" was inserted where it should not have been. A correction is being sought in HANSARD and this will be put right in the proper way.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. [Hon. Members: "No."] I am sorry, but I raise this with you, Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of the House obviously has not looked at HANSARD. If "not" is left out, the whole sense of the answer is lost.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow this matter to be discussed further. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw: The business following the Summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 18TH OCTOBER—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Consultative Document on the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.
Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill (Lords) which is a Consolidation Measure.
TUESDAY, 19TH OCTOBER AND WEDNESDAY, 20TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to Bills which may be received.
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill (Lords).
THURSDAY, 21ST OCTOBER—A debate on the United Kingdom and the European Communities will be opened and will continue throughout six sittings, being brought to a conclusion on Thursday, 28th October.
Thereafter, subject to progress of business, the House will prorogue.
It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 2nd November.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in relation to Tuesday and Wednesday, 19th and 20th October—admittedly a long time ahead—whether the Lords Amendments he expects to bring before the House on that occasion will include Lords Amendments to the Immigration Bill?
Secondly, since this looks like a very busy period which will include one or two debates the Opposition have asked for, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Supply Day which we lent to the Government a couple of weeks ago will be carried forward by the usual arrangement into the new Session?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. On his first point, yes, it is likely and expected that the Lords Amendments to which I referred will be those to the Immigration Bill. On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I gave my word about carrying this Supply Day forward, and I am delighted to confirm that today.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question, which might be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. We all know how difficult it is for the Chair to carry out its duties, which it does very fairly, in the matter of selecting speakers for debates. Without commenting on past debates, as we shall shortly be debating the question of our entry into the E.E.C., and matters related thereto, may I ask the Leader of the House, or you, Sir, whether something could be done to assist the Chair? If every hon. Member wishes to participate in that debate, how can the Chair be assisted in maintaining a fair balance?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and on this occasion I wish to thank him for giving me notice that he proposed to raise this matter. I think it will be agreed that, inevitably, selection is a matter for the Chair. So far as the Government are concerned, there has been a generous allocation of time for this debate, as has been recognised throughout the House. This is the way in which the Government have helped. I have always said that I am prepared to discuss through the usual channels the conduct of this debate. That could not include the question of selection of speakers, which must be a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If I may intervene on this matter, it is, as has been said, a difficult task for the Chair to be fair both as to the distribution of time and keeping the debate going. Sometimes it is not easy to categorise speakers. For example, if an hon. Member says he is in favour of going into the Common Market but will vote against the Government in October, how does one categorise such a speech—for or against? It would be a very great help to the Chair if right hon. and hon. Members would indicate their desire to speak and be kind enough to give me, in confidence, the general purport of their speeches.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early Day Motion No. 680, which stands in my name and in names of a number of my hon. Friends, on the controversy between C. A. Parsons and the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers? Would he consider whether this would be a suitable subject for discussion when the House returns?

[That, in the opinion of this House, it is regrettable that a firm of C. A. Parsons' standing in this country and the world should have issued dismissal notices to trade unionists belonging to the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers which would have been illegal had the Industrial Relations Bill been on the Statute Book, as is the intention this week; further considers that, in a period of high unemployment on Tyneside, the dismissal of men in order to endeavour to force them to join the Draughtsmen's and Technicians' Association, a union not of their choice, does not make for industrial employment so necessary to the North, or for legal justice, or for good industrial relations; and hopes that C. A. Parsons will reverse their decision.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted the Motion to which my hon. Friend refers. I note its contents and equally note what she suggests, and will consider this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: On the Immigration Bill I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that it is inconvenient not to have notice of Amendments. Is it not the case that the printing of Amendments does not take place until shortly before the House resumes? Would the right hon. Gentleman make some arrangements to make sure that as soon as he knows we are coming back the authorities of the House can arrange for these Amendments to be published at an early date so that we may gather our forces and put down the necessary Amendments?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and will do my best to help. If I was at all doubtful in my remarks, I was purely following constitutional precedent, because I cannot presume what will happen in another place. I cannot automatically say that another place will have completed its business, because that is not a matter for me. It is ony on that account that I was taking the correct constitutional line in being somewhat vague. I will do my best to help.

Mr. Adley: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 693, which is in my name, and refer to line 11 where there is a misprint. May I have an assurance that in the new Session the House will have an opportunity to debate the Motion and cross-question

the Government on the implications of the Concorde programme.

[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to show a little more public enthusiasm for Concorde, the greatest British technological achievement for a generation; believes that Concorde's unique lead in the race for supersonic aircraft sales will stand the programme in good stead for 30 years; calls the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the historic marketing successes achieved by commercial aircraft offering the customer a really significant reduction in inter-continental journey times; reminds them of the success of the Boeing 707 as the aircraft which replaced the Douglas DC7C on the north Atlantic; asks them to recognise that the world's airlines are awaiting a firm decision of full production; pleads for understanding of the importance to the final success of Concorde of a show of enthusiasm and determination by leaders of public life in this country, in the manner that the French Government well understand; and finally suggests that there is a tremendous fund of public goodwill towards Concorde, which it is the Government's duty to the taxpayer effectively to exploit, as part of the necessary process of generating the interest of the airline customers who seek ultimately to provide the public with the most attractive and efficient form of transportation, which Concorde undoubtedly represents.]

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer questions about next Session.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed expressed in the House this morning the mounting anxiety over unemployment and redundancy in the greater Manchester area and the North-West. Could he give an undertaking that a debate on this subject will take place in the next parliamentary Session if only to deal with the frightening complacency of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his refusal to take any positive action to deal with the situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I utterly repudiate any suggestion of complacency on the part of my right hon. Friend. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman I should like to have


replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. North-East (Mr. Adley) and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), but since Mr. Speaker has ruled that I cannot reply about matters relating to next Session, I am unable to do so.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Could time be found in what remains of this Session after we return for the House to debate the recent report of the Select Committee on the work of the Ombudsman?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the importance of that report and accept the important and valuable part played by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) in chairing that Committee. I am afraid that, in view of the long time which has been allotted to the debate on the United Kingdom and the European Communities, I do not feel able to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in the time before the next Session. But I note—without going any further, which I must not—the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in past weeks in questions on Business he has been pressed by Members from Northern Ireland and other hon. Members to ask the Home Secretary to make a statement before the House rises for the recess on the position in Northern Ireland? Has he made arrangements on this matter or has he asked the Home Secretary whether he will make such a statement. He will recall that on 22nd July he referred, in what he described as a forthcoming answer, to the willingness of the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Northern Ireland position. There has been no such statement and, since great concern is felt in Northern Ireland on the rising tempo of terrorist activity, may we have a statement today?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe I did say to my hon. Friend previously that I knew my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to keep the House properly informed of any development in Northern Ireland. He has not found it necessary to make a statement. I understand that this question may be raised on an Adjournment Motion later today. My right hon. Friend certainly will be here for that debate.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night I conveyed a formal request to the Home Secretary that he should make a statement today, and that it will be our intention to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment? I ask the Leader of the House once again to convey to the Home Secretary what I believe is the desire of Members in all parts of the House, that he should not only attend during that debate but should give us the benefit of his views?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be here and will listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I shall, of course, consult my right hon. Friend on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman has put to me.

Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in another place there is a civilised habit, which makes for good debate, whereby the Chair, with the aid of the usual channels, arranges the order of speeches for the day. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that on at least one of the days during the Common Market debate an experiment on those lines should be carried out?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my right hon. and learned Friend says. As a considerable supporter of the usual channels in the past, I believe that there are particular tasks which on the whole I personally would prefer not to be asked to carry out. And I rather suspect from the noises in the House at what my right hon. and learned Friend said, that others would agree with me.

Mr. David Stoddart: The Leader of the House will be aware of my interest in the White Paper containing the Government's observations on the first Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner. Since this is such an important document, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can squeeze in a little time before Prorogation of the House to allow us to discuss this subject.

Mr. Whitelaw: I went as far as I could in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). I do not think I should go any further.

Sir R. Russell: If it turns out that an enormous number of hon. Members want to speak in the Common Market debate, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the rule on some nights of the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have said that I am perfectly ready to discuss the conduct of debates through the usual channels and to hear representations from any Member in the House about the time. I undertake to do that.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the time we shall be in recess at least 25 million people in Bengal face the danger of death from starvation and that there is a serious risk of widespread war between Indian and Pakistan. In the event of further deterioration in the situation, will he make arrangements for the House to be recalled from the recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the importance of the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and I know his knowledge and interest in it. I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been able to do in this matter has been recognised as a proper contribution by this country. The procedure for a recall of the House in particular circumstances, as I will again bring out in the Adjournment debate, and the representations that can be made and the way in which this is dealt with under Standing Order No. 122, will apply in this recess as has been the case in all recesses in the past.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 690 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and several of his hon. Friends in the home counties dealing with the subject of airport development in the London area, which arises out of an answer to a Written Question on 20th July? As this is a most important matter, will he undertake to produce a White Paper on national airport policy before the end of this Session since this has such crucial implications for civil aviation?

[That this House notes with satisfaction the intention of Her Majesty's Government to use the capacity of the third

London airport to give the maximum benefit to those around existing airports who suffer from noise, their conclusions that it will not be necessary to construct new runways at Heathrow and Luton in the foreseeable future, that upon the coming into operation of the third London airport limits and restraints should be imposed on Heathrow to reduce noise, and Luton need not continue as a major airport; congratulates the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll and the Secretary of State for the Environment upon the understanding and resolution which they have brought to the appalling problem of noise round London airports; and urges them to expedite the construction of the third London airport with the utmost urgency and meanwhile to take every palliative measure possible to reduce the present impact of aircraft noise on the population of the metropolitan region.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned will appreciate what the Motion says. I could not undertake anything about a White Paper, but I shall pass on to my right hon. Friends who are concerned what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the resumed debate on the Common Market in October, can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the likely terms of the Motion or Motions which will be before the House? Can he say when we are likely to know the terms?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly not this week.

Mr. Buchan: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the matter raised yesterday when you, Mr. Speaker, ruled very properly that it was not one for you but for the Leader of the House? It relates to the now familiar subject of the transfer of Questions. It may be that, on the last day before the Summer Recess, this is the right time for the right hon. Gentleman to consider it.
Quite apart from the transfer of Questions to the Prime Minister, which has been a source of a great deal of complaint, we had an instance where the transfer was done so badly that the original form of the Question, which


referred to the Scottish Development Department, the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, was put into the form of a Question to the Secretary of State for Employment, who has no responsibility for the Scottish Development Department. Questions are being transferred in other forms, and responsibility, therefore, is being ignored by the relevant Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman has three months in which to straighten out this matter. I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been into this matter and checked carefully. Sometimes when a Question is properly transferred and where it would be accepted by the House as being properly transferred, the sense is somewhat changed. I understand from your advisers, Mr. Speaker, that it will be possible in future in such cases to make corrections so that the sense is preserved where it is felt that Questions have been properly transferred.
In the matter of transfers generally, I have looked carefully and cannot find, either in the case of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or anyone else, any change in previous practice. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered more Questions than his predecessor. There has been no change in practice. But I shall look into the matter.

Sir Robert Cary: With regard to the suggestion put to my right hon. Friend by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about a named list of speakers in an imitation of another place, does not my right hon. Friend agree that that would ruin the essence of debate in this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not necessarily think that it is for me to decide what the House feels. I have noted what my right hon. and learned Friend said. I understand his feelings, and obviously there would be some advantages in the adoption of his suggestion. I confined myself to the point about the usual channels. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I was probably wise to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Davies. Statement.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order. When I asked by business question earlier, the Leader of the House replied that he had already dealt with it in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). However, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I asked for a debate on Cmnd. 2478. My question was quite different from the one asked by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry. It was my stupidity. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I shall look into the point that he has made.

Mr. Rhodes: On a further point of order. Since the last business statement, a number of my hon. Friends have tabled an Early Day Motion. A number of hon. Members were called to ask questions on the business statement. I was not called, although I tabled that Motion. But, Mr. Speaker, you called a number of hon. Members who may not have tabled a Motion since the last business statement. Might I ask the Leader of the House for a debate after the recess on the Motion that I have tabled?

Mr. Speaker: In view of what may happen later today, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to put his Question.

Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 685, referring to the financial support of Prime Ministers past and present. During the recess, can the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friends to publish their bank accounts so that we may discuss them when we return after the recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public curiosity and interest in the general question of how right hon. Gentlemen manage to keep themselves solvent?

[That this House congratulates the Leader of the Opposition in revealing to the public the financial circumstances in which he was left after serving as Prime Minister; welcomes this innovation of uninhibited frankness in opening up these matters of great public interest and concern; and invites the Prime Minister and his colleagues to reveal their own financial circumstances for public perusal.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the best answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that the Boyle Committee is looking into the whole question of Ministers' and Members' salaries. The Committee probably will be reporting in the autumn. That is the place where all these matters can be considered carefully.
While I am on my feet, may I apologise to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I was correct in saying that the Answer to which he had referred had a misprint and that it would be corrected. However, I was wrongly informed about the word "not". I am sure that it will give the hon. Gentleman pleasure to know that I was wrong and that he was right.

ATOMIC WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): With permission, I shall make a statement on the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment.
The Rayner Report on "Government Organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace"—published in Cmnd. 4641 in April—recommended that responsibility for the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment should be transferred from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence.
The White Paper announced that the Government would examine, in consultation with the Authority, how best A.W.R.E.'s functions could be rationalised with those of the other defence research establishments. The Government have consulted the representatives of both the management and the staff of the Authority and have decided that the substantial rationalisation required can be effected only if the A.W.R.E. and the other establishments concerned are brought under the same management. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation the A.W.R.E. will therefore be transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
The future arrangements for the civil work now done in the establishment will be discussed with the Atomic Energy Authority: the continuity of the civil nuclear work and in particular that of

the important work on the fast breeder reactor will be ensured.
The Government intend to introduce a Bill in the next Session, so that the transfer can be implemented in the summer of 1972. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will take the lead in preparing and handling the legislation, and dealing with all questions that relate to the actual transfer. I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace will of course continue to deal with matters affecting the rest of the Authority.
During the next few months the Ministry of Defence will consult the A.E.A. and the appropriate staff and trades union representatives about the terms and conditions on which staff will be transferred. Some adjustments will probably be inescapable. But the general aim will be that the terms and conditions taken as a whole shall be no less favourable than those provided for in existing contracts.
I realise that successive changes have been unsettling for the staff of the Authority. I cannot rule out the possibility of further change at some time—the Government are considering how best the electricity supply industry and the nuclear industry could be more closely involved in reactor research and development. But if a change in the Authority's statutory functions and organisation should be decided on, resulting in further transfers of Authority staff into some new structure, such transfers would be on a comparable basis to that for staff transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, although some continuing reduction in Authority staff is envisaged, the Government foresee the need for a substantial long term programme of important civil R. & D. work.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has made concerns not just an administrative change, since it embodies changes of national policy of the very highest importance? For the first time in this country and, I believe, in any western country, we are marshalling nuclear weapons research and production with and under a Defence Minister who will be responsible for the strategy and possible use of those weapons. Even in the


United States the Atomic Energy Commission is separate from the Pentagon, and in France at Pierrelatte there is a separate Minister other than the Defence Minister. This means that the Cabinet receives its advice on nuclear matters from one Minister only and not from two, one responsible for scientists and one for military strategy.
I should, therefore, like to ask the following questions. First, will he consider again the full implications of putting nuclear scientists under the military alone in any Western country and contrary to our whole experience since 1955? Secondly, will he consider again whether it is sensible that the trend in diversifying military research into civil research should be reversed? Thirdly, will he consider the implications of bringing a lot of Atomic Energy Authority civil servants back into the Government, and particularly the staff implications? Fourthly, will he tell the House when we may know about the future of the Atomic Energy Authority which, with the disappearance of Aldermaston, is clearly a major change of its position?
Finally, whether the proposals are right or wrong—they have been keenly debated in Whitehall—does the Minister agree that there should be a White Paper and a full debate on the principles before the legislation is prepared so that the matters which I have raised, and many others, can be considered in full by the House in view of their major national importance?

Mr. Davies: I am conscious of the very important policy nature of the decision now made. I should make one small correction to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is nuclear weapons matters which are being transferred to the Ministry of Defence. There is obviously a continuing and important nuclear activity within the Atomic Energy Authority.
The right hon. Gentleman considered that there was some risk of not maintaining the trend from military into civil research in this sphere. I do not see any risk of this. The intention is for there to be full discussion between the two bodies of research in this sphere with a view to ascertaining the complementary features between the two and to maintain them.
On the staff implications, I think that I gave satisfaction in the broad assurance

which I gave that it would be our aim to see that the general terms of service, despite the change in status of the people concerned, are maintained.
The right hon. Gentleman's final question concerned the desirability of placing before the House a White Paper and instituting a debate on the matter when more definite plans regarding the Atomic Energy Authority are available. I shall certainly give consideration to that point, though I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the examination into the future rôle and organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to which I have referred, may not be ready for some time.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving consideration to some of the points which I have raised. May I underline that, to put scientists working on nuclear weapons under the Minister responsible for their possible use, is a major reversal of British policy over a long period? With growing worldwide anxiety about the control of military and civil technology and with the development in the scientific community of new movements for social responsibility, he has touched on a central political question which the House will want to debate very fully. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will not be a final closing of minds on this matter by the Government until the House, the scientific community, and the public generally have had an opportunity to take on board the significance of what has been stated today?

Mr. Davies: It is important to stress that, within the sphere of vital policymaking to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, although those with responsibilities in this area answer directly to the Minister of Defence, it is clear that the Government as a whole are involved in the policy-making considerations. Therefore, I think that the narrow aspect of the problem, as he outlines it, in terms of a single Minister being solely responsible for this enormously important area of activity, is not entirely in accordance with the normal practices of the Government.

Mr. David Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend taken into account the advantages which have arisen in the past from the


close association of those working on both civil and defence research projects side-by-side under the same roof? In practice, there seem to have been considerable advantages from close association and being able to discuss problems which arise similarly in both defence and civil advanced research in this area. It seems that there might be a considerable loss in the physical separation involved in the Government's proposals.

Mr. Davies: I do not think so, because the civil and defence research will continue to function shoulder to shoulder within the framework of the A.W.R.E. It is not intended that there should be a cessation of the civil research activity. I do not think that there is any risk of that.
The other side of the question posed by my hon. Friend concerns whether the total integration of the atomic issue in a single entity is more desirable than the potential rationalisation to be achieved by identifying those parts of it concerned purely with defence and seeking to improve rationalisation in that sphere, which is the conclusion at which the Government have arrived.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the House will not accept his characterisation of my right hon. Friend's view about the seriousness of the decision which he has taken as a narrow consideration or concept? This is a matter of profound importance, and we should have not a White Paper but, in my view, a Green Paper setting out the alternative possibilities which the House can debate fully before the Government come to a final conclusion on this vitally important matter.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that the narrow concept was in formulating the thought that a single Minister within this area, albeit the Secretary of State for Defence, had sole disposal of the total policies involved in this naturally important strategic sphere.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend take particular note of one point touched upon by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about the problem of looking after the interests, at Cabinet level, of those who find themselves

transferred from civil to defence responsibility?

Mr. Davies: Yes. I hope that I have given the kind of assurances which are wanted in that respect. The matter is clearly very much in the Government's mind. The considerations put forward by my hon. Friend will be strictly borne in mind.

Mr. Booth: Under the new system of administration for A.W.R.E. which the Government are to propose in legislation, will there still be common use of research and development facilities for both military and civil purposes? If so, how will decisions be made whether priority is given to their use for civil or military purposes? Will decisions on this issue be subject to the control of this House?

Mr. Davies: It is right, as the hon. Gentleman says, that at the moment there is a common effort in both civil and defence research and development within the framework of the organisation concerned. That will continue. The control of that operation is clearly a matter in which the relative interests of the two Departments concerned will have to confront each other in determining the effort devoted within the A.W.R.E. to the respective interests of those Departments. This will continue under arrangements which the Government have already made.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many hon. Members, and far more scientists, will regard this proposal as both reactionary and dangerous? Will it not mean the subordinating of research for peaceful nuclear purposes to the military rather than vice versa, as many of us would wish? Will he tell us what is to be the future of Aldermaston? We understood, years ago, that it was to be transferred almost entirely to peaceful purposes. I wonder whether this is now the case. Lastly, is not this a breach of the non-proliferation agreement in which it was implicit that those who had nuclear power should at least restrain rather than encourage others to enter this sphere?

Mr. Davies: There will not be any subordination of the civil research interest by the military. That will not take place. The civil research interest will


still be strongly defended by my Department in consultation with the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the broad use of Aldermaston. At the moment, Aldermaston is used to something less than a fifth in terms of civil effort and, therefore, slightly more than four-fifths in terms of military effort. It is impossible at this moment to say how these proportions will evolve. This is the situation now. It is far from a situation where the research establishment was moving more and more into a military section. I must equally point out that there is no risk of breach of any non-proliferation agreement.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staff at the A.W.R.E., or many of them, have expressed fears about this type of reorganisation? Is he further aware that fears have been expressed about large-scale redundancies, both at the A.W.R.E. and at the A.E.A.? Will he give an assurance that if there are to be redundancies consultations will take place before the event, rather than after? I hope, of course, that there will be no redundancies at all.

Mr. Davies: The future of the establishment is clearly a matter for the Ministry of Defence, and not for me, but I am sure that I can, on its behalf, give the House the assurance that where there are redundancies there will be proper and previous consultation before any such decision is taken.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We must pass on to the other business.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to just one more question.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept from me that, in the judgment of the Opposition, the reversal of a policy which has been pursued by all Governments since nuclear weapons were first developed in this country, which al-way put their control either directly under the Prime Minister, or under a separate Minister to whom the scientists involved

could go without feeling that they were going to someone who might wish to, or be in a position to, use them, is a major constitutional question, and one which, without prejudice to the merits of the argument, ought to be publicly debated and understood, and not slipped through as simply a management decision?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take that in the spirit in which I make the point, and to put it to members of the Cabinet and to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that there should be a statement, a White Paper or a Green Paper, in which the merits of both sides of the argument are clearly argued so that we do not stumble into another decision in the guise of technology when it is really a major political decision.

Mr. Davies: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's apprehensions but I feel that all these points can, and no doubt will, be expressed in the debate dealing with the legislation when it is produced.

GAS INDUSTRY (STRUCTURE)

12.42 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future structure of the gas industry.
The present statutory organisation of the gas industry was established in 1948 and has remained virtually unchanged ever since. In recent years, as a result of the successful exploitation of the discoveries of natural gas in the North Sea, there has been a fundamental alteration in the nature of the industry. The local manufacture of gas from coal and oil is rapidly declining and natural gas already accounts for the bulk of gas used in this country. The supply of gas has now to be organised on a national scale.
This transformation needs to be reflected in a new organisation structure for the industry involving increased central direction combined with the maximum possible management flexibility. I have therefore decided that there should be a single statutory authority for the industry. Legislation is to be introduced to establish, I hope early in 1973, a British Gas Corporation combining the responsibilities of the Gas Council and the area boards.


The corporation will have primary responsibility for determining the internal management structure of the industry, and for the appropriate devolution of functions to local managements. It will have the duty of reviewing its organisation from time to time, and reports of the reviews will be laid before Parliament.
At the same time, I am anxious that there should continue to be Scottish and Welsh administrative units of the industry, and the Corporation will be required to provide for them. In making appointments to the Corporation, I shall also have regard to the advisability of including members familiar with regional requirements and circumstances.
There will also be provision for the continuation of local consumer consultative machinery, and in addition a National Gas Consultative Council will be established.
As is usual with reorganisations such as this, the Bill will provide for compensation to be payable to board members and employees who are adversely affected by the reorganisation.
The period until the new Corporation has assumed full responsibility will inevitably be difficult and one of some uncertainty for those who work in the industry, particularly the members and staff of area boards. But in view of the fine record of service which has characterised this industry at all levels. I have no doubt that those concerned will do their utmost to keep the industry working smoothly during the transitional period.
Over the last 20 years the area boards have made a great contribution to the development of the gas industry. I should like to pay tribute to all who have served on them, especially for the way in which latterly they have co-operated with the Gas Council in planning and executing the change to natural gas. But now we must look to the future and devise a structure which will best meet the needs of the industry in the years ahead. Given the nature of the technological advances which are being made I am sure that the creation of a single statutory authority will enable the industry to make the most of its opportunities while serving the interests of its customers.
After 12 years as Chairman of the Gas Council, Sir Henry Jones, who has

made such an outstanding contribution to the industry, will be retiring at the end of this year. He will be succeeded by the present deputy chairman, Mr. Arthur Hetherington. Mr. Denis Rooke, now member for production and supplies, will become the new deputy chairman.

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the notification that he gave me of the statement and, indeed, for the statement itself, which will go some way towards removing the uncertainties which the industry has had to endure during the last 12 months.
When we come to consider the Bill in the autumn we shall wish to examine it in great detail, in particular to see what methods are proposed for safeguarding the interests of individual areas, particularly Wales, Scotland and those with special problems.
As the House has so much business ahead of it, may I confine myself to general matters and ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware—as I am sure he must be—that the proposals which he has put to the House involve eating almost all the words which he and his hon. Friends used in the discussions on the previous Gas Bill that was being introduced, but that we shall be willing to wait until the autumn to examine the scale and quality of the feast?

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Welsh and Scottish units will be administrative ones, and the extent to which responsibilities are delegated from the centre will reflect national boundaries. The legislation, subject to further discussion about details, is intended to provide that no change shall be made in this matter without subsequent legislation.
With regard to the meal which the hon. Gentleman is wishing on me, obviously he recognises that we have moved considerably in time from the earlier considerations which led to the preparation of the previous Bill. It was based on experience gained up to 1968. We are now having to look well ahead to the future, taking account of the way in which the industry has been developing.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is my hon. Friend aware that strengthening the


consumer side by the creation of a National Consultative Council will be generally welcome to consumers throughout the country? This is a matter which has been looked at by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which will shortly be reporting on it.
The Select Committee has many times had the opportunity of hearing Sir Henry Jones give evidence. He has made an outstanding contribution to the Committee's debates, as well as to the industry.

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am looking forward with keen interest to the report of the Select Committees on Nationalised Industries on this matter.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the centralisation proposed in the creation of the Corporation will remove far more of the administration of the gas industry from the final consumer? Is he not aware, also, that the creation of national consumer consultative machinery will make the situation even worse? Is he really not aware that what is required is the continuity of meaningful local consumer consultative machinery? Will he ensure that if he has local consumer machinery he will make appointments not just from local authorities, but from consumer groups as well?

Sir J. Eden: It is obvious that an industry of this nature—especially one that supplies the needs of such a large number of individual customers throughout the country—must have effective devolution of responsibilities and administration from the centre. I have no doubt that that will continue to be the case in the future organisation. The consumer consultative machinery will continue to meet the needs of the consumers at local level. As for appointments to the consultative councils, I see no need

to change the existing practice but I will take account of the views put forward by the hon. Member and shall bear them in mind when appointments are to be made.

Mr. Emery: I congratulate my hon. Friend upon his statement, which makes it clear that this is the first major breakthrough towards obtaining a modern management structure in a nationalised industry. On the question of reorganisation, can my hon. Friend say anything about the capital structure as it exists at the moment, as compared to that which he envisages in future? Does he believe that there will be a need for greater borrowing powers than those already given to the industry? Can he give the House an assurance that the profitability that the gas industry has been able to achieve in the last three years—averaging about £14 million—will be continued? Further, can he tell the House whether the new board will include outside non-executive directors—which is not the case with the present Gas Council?

Sir J. Eden: The extent to which the new organisation of the industry will lead to any changes in borrowing powers will not be affected by the proposed structure. Although the borrowing powers aspect of the question will inevitably be as enshrined in any legislation that comes forward in due course, they will not be affected by the proposals that I have outlined in my statement this morning. On my hon. Friend's second point, about the composition of the Corporation, the details have not yet been finally settled, but the total membership will be between 10 and 20. We intend that it should have the ability to attract people from outside the industry in the form of part-time members such as my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must pass on now.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Monday, 18th October.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

12.52 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: We do not oppose the Adjournment of the House, but there is a feeling among hon. Members on both sides that it should not rise until there has been some statement from the Government about the situation in Northern Ireland. I tell the Leader of the House, in passing, that I very much regret that it has not been possible for him to arrange the business in a different way. We do not wish to raise these serious matters on this occasion because we can do so only at the expense of squeezing out those Members who traditionally raise matters which are of great importance to their constituents and others, but there is no alternative if this serious situation is to be discussed. I shall be as brief as I can.
I do not think that I have ever approached the Irish situation with as deep a sense of foreboding and impending tragedy as I do today. I say that without wishing in any way to be a Cassandra. I recognise only too well the intractable nature of the situation with which the Government are confronted, but it is clear—I do not say this in terms of reproach—that the Government have so far failed either to reconcile the minority or to reassure the majority.
It is because of this that the instrument for which we are primarily responsible, namely, the Army in Northern Ireland, is faced with a worsening of its own position. It is being asked to carry responsibility for a situation which the politicians have failed to resolve. The nature of its task has certainly changed during the last two years. It went in in order to keep the peace between the communities. That may still prove to be necessary—although I trust it will not—but the immediate task that it went in to do has long since gone, especially with the declaration of war by the I.R.A. The I.R.A. having declared war, the Army is bound to find itself increasingly engaged in hunting down individual I.R.A. members—men who are misguided and who are willing

to murder and to die for their belief in a united Ireland. The power of an idea of that sort is something that must be recognised and felt. It is almost tangible in the existing situation.
The Army is having to carry the responsibility of dealing with a political idea as powerful and emotive as this because we have failed to find any political solution to what is a long, deep and intractable problem.
I have had many letters on all aspects of the Irish problem. Indeed, I sometimes think that I should receive a double salary and should be the Member for Ulster as well as for Cardiff. I want to put on record that in spite of the number of letters that I get complaining about the actions of the Army it is my deep belief that no other Army faced with such provocation and the burden of handling a political problem that we have failed to solve would conduct itself with the restraint and in the way that the British Army has, overall.
Of course there are individual excesses, and cases where the Army does not behave in a way that we would all want it to behave. I am sure that the Minister accepts that. But that does not detract in any way from the action of the Army on the whole, when it is told to carry a political burden and handle it as it is doing. I say that in case anything that I say later may appear to contradict it.
I want to refer to the hardening of the majority's position and the failure of the Government to reassure it. Any one of us can understand how a member of a majority feels when he sees, on the television screen, the Army being pelted by children or, alternatively, so-called political leaders of the I.R.A., openly giving interviews to The Times and other newspapers and in every way behaving as though they were part of the normal democratic process. That must be a most aggravating situation for anyone in Northern Ireland who sees what is going on.
I ask the Home Secretary why it is not possible, with the powers at the disposal of the authorities, to take legal action against some of these so-called spokesmen. I am not a lawyer—perhaps some lawyers who are present may wish


to comment on the matter—but I have been advised that it is possible to take such action. It may be difficult to get a conviction from a jury; I do not know. But it is the responsibility of authorities to take action if they believe that a case lies. I ask the Home Secretary whether a case lies against some of these men and, if so, why action has not been taken, irrespective of whether a conviction would be secured.
I next want to refer to what I regard as the legitimate exasperation of the majority—not forgetting that intimidation of the minority is being carried out by a number of members of the majority. We cannot escape that fact, either. The instances that I have been given are too well documented for me to arrive at any other conclusion. I suppose that it is inevitable, as the situation becomes worse, that the minority will feel itself more and more persecuted. I say that only to illustrate the intractability of the problem.
I realise that the Home Secretary is surrounded by a multitude of counsellors with diametrically opposed advice. We know that there is at least one solution which is expected to clear up the situation in 30 days. I must say, I should be very interested to see it. There are other solutions which will point in an entirely different direction. I would say to those who believe that it is possible to clear up the situation in 30 days that the right hon. Gentleman would have to wade through a great deal of bloodshed to do it. That is not a matter of policy which will commend itself to anyone on this side of the water.
Nor should he feel that he can rely on British soldiers in order to pursue such a policy. I support what the Home Secretary has said in the past, that this is a long haul—and we cannot escape from that when we have 300 years of history behind us which is, alas, only too well remembered by the people of Ireland. I recognise the Home Secretary's difficulties, but whatever he is doing behind the scenes, he does not give the public appearance of activity.
The right hon. Gentleman has a massive and practical common sense, but I wish that, on this subject, he had rather less common sense and was using his

psychology a little more. Aneurin Bevan said of the Labour Party that leading it was like riding a bicycle: if one stopped pedalling, one fell off. The same is true of the Home Secretary in relation to Northern Ireland. I do not know whether he is pedalling or not—I see no signs of it—but it is essential when handling Northern Ireland that there should be a continual attempt to keep open the channels of communication, to ensure that political initiatives are being taken which will keep people on the move.
At the moment, we seem to be frozen into immobility, with a deeper sense of impending doom than I have ever known. We are one week ahead of the Apprentice Boys' march. I well remember the 12th August, 1969. Last year, the Boys' march was cancelled—although it took place. What is the Home Secretary's view this year? I think that the House has a right to ask, because we could be faced with a disaster after 12th August.
What advice is the Home Secretary getting from the Army and the police? Normally, I would not ask this question, except that, in relation to internment, Ministers have relied on the fact, openly stated, that they are not using it because they are not being advised by the Army to intern the I.R.A. If they are willing to give us the benefit of and to rely on the Army's advice in a matter such as that, we are equally entitled, on a matter such as this march, to ask what is the Army's view.
It is my understanding—only through a reading of the Press, I hasten to add—that the advice of the Army is that this march should be cancelled. If that is their advice—we are entitled to ask it—what is the right hon. Gentleman's view? It may be cancelled but still go on—I understand that that was what happened last year—but nevertheless I believe that the Government should have a view about this.
With respect to Mr. Faulkner, it is not sufficient for him to say that because this is a traditional march it must go on. That will not do as an argument, strong though the feelings are. For my own part, I would think it wise to cancel it. This would be my own advice, that I would give and stand by in the light of other things that I have to say today.
So this is the background to the situation. The I.R.A. are getting bolder. They in turn are intimidating some of the Catholics. We should not shrink from that either. Again, if I am to judge from my correspondence, many members of the minority have no desire to assist the I.R.A. or to see it playing the rôle and taking the part that it is playing. They are frightened to say so except to me or to someone who they think is not in a position to divulge it.
But if one is living in that kind of street, in that kind of situation, how in-possible it is to speak out—whether one is, as in this case, a member of the minority who is unwilling and fearful to speak out against the I.R.A., or, as in other cases, a member of the minority which is being persecuted by the Protestants. All these things are true. Everyone knows it in his heart, whether or not he is willing to admit it openly.
One other factor comes into the situation. My other fear is that this disease will spread to the South and involve the Republic. The Prime Minister of the Republic, who has conducted himself very coolly in this situation, must be aware of this fearful prospect of it spreading. I have come more and more to believe that, not just on security matters alone but on general matters—this is a development of my thinking over the last few years—the South must be brought into the picture much more than hitherto. It is on this basis that I want to put some views to the Home Secretary.
I would very much like to suggest that, instead of leaving the visit of Mr. Lynch to this country until October, when I understand he is to talk about the Common Market, he should be invited to come here straight away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and not only Mr. Lynch, but Mr. Faulkner, that they should both be asked here when we are facing the kind of situation which may fall upon us within a week or a little longer.
I have no doubt that Mr. Lynch would want to put some of his own items on the agenda if he responded—I have no reason to believe that he would not respond—but there are two things that the Government themselves might put on such an agenda. I am here advancing thoughts and not attempting to dictate policy in any way. This is too serious

a situation for anyone to be utterly dogmatic about it.
What I am going to say will not find much favour among the majority in the North. However, let it be said. I would propose on the agenda to put to Mr. Lynch the suggestion that a Council of All Ireland should be formed, that, although it should have and could have at this moment no legislative or indeed administrative responsibility, it should, because of the possible spread of this disease, be formed from members of both Stormont and the Dail, with a view to discussing problems of mutual concern to both North and South.
This again is a development of thinking that I used when I was in Ireland in the South last March, because I have become increasingly conscious of the need for co-operation between the South and the North on matters of regional and industrial development. I made a speech in the South along these lines as well as in Ulster. I believe that there is now both a psychological need as well as a rational case for saying that it is time that the two Parliaments met to discuss problems of mutual concern.
There is nothing novel about this suggestion. It was proposed 50 years ago, and at that time Ulster was willing and the South was unwilling. My own guess is that now Ulster would be unwilling and the South would be agreeable. Such are the queer quirks of Irish history. I do not know whether they would or not, but we need some political initiative. There may be many better ideas—I am willing to withdraw this suggestion in favour of anything better that anyone has to propose—but I am convinced that there must be some closer working together.
My own views on the border are too well known for me to detain the House by restating them. To abolish the border now would be to transfer the violence from Belfast to Dublin. Instead of the I.R.A. fighting it out in Belfast, the Protestants would be fighting it out in Dublin. There is no solution in abolishing the border in present circumstances. The constitutional arrangement must stand. The border is there. I do not develop the argument, but I want hon. Members to see my case in its context.
It is against that background that I say that the Government might well raise with Mr. Lynch and Mr. Faulkner the possibility of their coming together in this way for mutual discussions on matters of common concern.
I have not mentioned the question of security in this context, though it is essential that there should be talks on this, too. There is, after all, a joint border. I assume that the British Army is patrolling one side of it. I do not know what is happening on the other side, but it is necessary to patrol both sides because it is not only the Ulster Unionist Government to which the I.R.A. is opposed. It is equally and bitterly opposed to the Government of Mr. Lynch, to Fine Gael and to the Irish Labour Party in the South.
There is no sense in which the I.R.A. is willing to co-operate with Mr. Lynch, any more than it is willing to co-operate with Mr. Faulkner. This is a group of men whom I have described as desperate in their beliefs, though profound and sincere. They would wreck Ireland if they were to gain control. I fear that they have already gained too much control, and this is why the question of security—this includes the patrolling of the border and legal action against these men who are concerned; indeed, any action, because I do not rule anything out in this context—must be open for discussion between Mr. Lynch, Mr. Faulkner and the British Government.
I emphasise that it cannot only be action against the I.R.A. There are far too many guns in other hands in Northern Ireland. Those who tell people to hang on to their guns are not doing any service to peace in Northern Ireland. They are most certainly not. As I say, there are too many guns there, and private armies will not solve this problem.
I therefore repeat what I know has been the policy of the Government and what was the policy when I was Home Secretary, which is the need to put the other point of view—the belief that guns in any hands, held legally or not, should be handed over to the authorities, and in the circumstances of Northern Ireland it is irresponsible to suggest anything different.
I am putting a package approach. I am not suggesting and I have never suggested that one should rely either on repression,

which may put the lid on the pot for a few months or years only to burst open again a little later, or on yielding to force when one will not yield to reason.
I do not take either view, and any hon. Member who has been in this House watching the post-Imperial history of Britain in the last 25 years has seen how, when we have failed to concede what reason could legitimately demand and expect, after only a few years we have often had to yield to force. The North and South must work together and this must be our starting point.
I have one more request to make to the Home Secretary. Please do not try to extract any individual item from what I have said. The question of the security of the people of Ireland and the question of constitutional advance for them must go together. I would not be in favour of repression without the taking of a political initiative. Nor do I believe that one can make any progress without trying to give the people of Ireland the feeling that they can live assured in their own homes.
Whatever may be said about what, I hope, are the constructive ideas I have put forward—I have put them forward not to embarrass but to help—I hope that these ideas will be seen as an attempt to construct something as a whole and as an attempt to look at the situation in a way that may command success.
If we are faced, as I fear we may well be, with a serious deterioration in the situation, and if the British Army is called on to bear a political burden that is not rightly theirs to carry—if, for example, it is necessary to suspend Stormont, or whatever action may be necessary—I am sure that I shall get support in saying that the House of Commons should be recalled at once to discuss the situation. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary will give that assurance.
I hope that my Cassandra-like fears will prove to be unfounded. I profoundly hope that the situation will prove to be better than I have described, though I am bound to say that there is little cause for hope at the moment.

1.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I listened with the closest attention to everything which the right hon. Member


for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said and I thank him for the constructive way in which he phrased his speech. He will not expect me to comment on it directly. I will study his remarks closely and carefully. I am indebted to him for the way in which he adduced his remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about making a statement. I have not made one and I did not say I would make one, primarily because there is no new announcement to make. I did not think it helpful, and I did not believe that it would be seen to be helpful, if I were to make a statement when there was nothing new to announce.
On the last occasion, a fortnight ago, when the Home Office was at the top for Questions in the House, there was only one Question on Northern Ireland, and that was deliberately not asked. Thus, I do not believe that I can be blamed for not volunteering a statement, particularly when I had nothing to say.
At this stage, therefore, all I can say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that I listened closely to what he said and that I will listen equally closely to other speeches that will undoubtedly be made on this Motion, which is, of course, about the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess and not about Northern Ireland.
I agreed very much with the right hon. Gentleman when he emphasised that the I.R.A. had declared war on the British Government. That is absolutely true. It is equally true to say that the I.R.A. is not the Catholic community but only a small part of it, and the whole House will join with him in the tribute he paid to the work of the British Army in what are extremely difficult circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why no legal action had been taken against people who were reputedly spokesmen for the I.R.A. I asure him that if it is possible to bring before the courts, to prosecute and to convict anyone responsible for any of the outrages of the I.R.A., there will be no hesitation in doing so. This is one of the objectives of the policy. We want to get these men, but we can get them only when the law and the position makes it possible for us to do so.
As I say, I listened carefully to his remarks. I have no statement to make at present and I do not think that I could usefully make one at the moment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Surely we can expect a statement about 12th August and the Derry Boys' march? As one who was in Bog-side in 1969—and it is from August, 1969, when the Government took over and when 450 Catholic homes were burnt out in Belfast that the real deterioration started—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to allow the 12th August Derry march to continue? We are entitled to an answer to this question.

Mr. Maudling: I am well aware of the considerations involved in this issue, but I believe that it is for the Northern Ireland Government and not for the British Govment to take the decision. [Interruption.] As far as views of the military are concerned, I ask him not to believe all he reads in the newspapers.
I repeat that I listened carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and that I will listen closely to what is said in this debate. We all have one clear objective in common, and that is to establish peace and order in Northern Ireland, for it is on that alone that progress can be made in the interests of all the communities in that country.

1.19 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today, because the House should not adjourn in view of the serious nature of the problem in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be brief.
The British Government's often repeated assurances about the constitution only make the seeking of a political solution to the Irish problem more difficult. The crisis in Northern Ireland stems not only from the fact that there has been a Right-wing take-over of Unionism, but also, and primarily, from the basic instability of the Northern Ireland State. This instability is due to the built-in violence in the systems in Northern Ireland—the social, economic, political and judicial systems in that part of Ireland.
This built-in instability exists because those systems can work only through violence. They work and depend on the inbuilt violence of discrimination, of repressive laws—they are more repressive than they have been at any time since the Penal Code—and of the violence of the judiciary, which operates a dual standard of justice. They also depend on the violence which inflicts poverty, unemployment and bad housing conditions on the people. They depend on the violence of internment with trial at the moment and the imminent prospect of internment without trial in the immediate future.
The Unionist system is inherently violent. It was born out of violence and is maintained through violence. That is an accepted fact. Bombs and bullets are an obvious form of violence but the systematic destruction of human beings through unemployment and through the degradation of human dignity is a much more sophisticated and deadly form of violence. Those who so loudly condemn violence would show a little imagination, if not intelligence, if they first condemned the cause of that violence—the inbuilt violence of the Unionist system.
The Government must seek a political solution to the crisis in the North. That crisis is due to the utter failure of the partition solution. The Unionists think that they have the solution in their present constitutional advantage, backed up by the guns and tanks of the British Army, but 50 years' history has shown that solution to have been an abysmal failure and the constantly repeated reassurances from the Government on the situation only mean that in future more guns, more bombs and more tanks will be needed to maintain the State.
The British Government must confront the basic issue—the failure of partition. There are three options, as I see it, open to them. First, they can maintain the present system, thus abdicating their responsibility; secondly, they can suspend Stormont or they can suspend the Government of Ireland—that is, to assume responsibility at Westminster; thirdly, they can do what they should do, and that is to review the entire situation.
The solution must give stability and justice. No solution that is not acceptable to 1 million Protestants can ever work; everyone agrees on that. Equally, no solution that is not acceptable to the 3½ million Catholics can ever work; everyone should also agree on that. The present reckless course of Government policy can lead only to further death and destruction in Northern Ireland. The British Army has embarked on a campaign of terror against the minority in Northern Ireland. Who can describe the full horrors of an occupying army? I shall not delay the House with the all-too-familiar tale of horror that comes from any community which is suffering an occupying army. Derry and Belfast have endured martial law for a long time. Everyone in Derry and Belfast knows and realises that. Only the British Government will not own up to the fact.
The British Army went into Northern Ireland to defend the minority. At that time, the minority in Northern Ireland would have welcomed the Red Army or any other army in the position in which they found themselves. But the people who burnt out over 450 houses are still at large; the guns that were used to shoot young children in their beds are still in the hands of those who used them; none of the people who stockpiled the petrol bombs to burn out the Catholic houses have been brought to book.
The Unionist Members from Northern Ireland come here with their nauseating declarations of loyalty—the sort of loyalty demonstrated at Dungiven, a loyalty which should not fool anyone in this House. These people belong to the same sinister secret society and the same party who egged on their half-demented followers into the pogroms in Belfast in 1969, yet they come here and talk sweet reason and loudly condemn violence.
Brian Faulkner and the Unionists are encouraging their followers to be patient, to be good boys and not show them up as they did in 1969, and to take the law into their own hands. In other words, they are encouraging the emergence in Northern Ireland of private armies to move in if the British Army should happen to move out.
We hear a lot about the Protestant backlash. Much play has been made by


the British Government about it. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) mentioned it. It was no I.R.A. campaign which produced the Protestant backlash which resulted in the ambush of the young marchers to Derry. Nor was it an I.R.A. campaign which produced the Protestant backlash which brought about the invasion of Bog-side or Falls Road in 1969. No provocation is needed to produce a Protestant backlash, because the Northern Ireland State itself is a Protestant backlash. It is the greatest blackmail of the century. It is the backlash which the British Government have never attempted to confront or defeat. That is the real reason why Northern Ireland is in such a shocking state.
The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence consistently refuse to admit the evidence and testimony of civilian observers on the conduct of the Army, just as their predecessors consistently defended the reputation of the Black and Tans in the 1920s. History has passed its verdict on the Black and Tans. History will record its verdict also on the present Army of occupation. It will then be too late for the Government to say, "We have not enough information or knowledge." It is the Government's Army which is terrorising the minority in Northern Ireland. It is the British Army which is terrorising and killing innocent civilians in Northern Ireland. It is your Army, and you are answerable.
If there is sense left in this House, the 12th August march in Derry will be cancelled. If there is any regard left in this House for the rights of man, internment will not be introduced, because it is a hateful and despicable thing. I warn the Government that if it is introduced, it will not be tolerated lightly by the minority. All the minority will resist it to the uttermost of their power. If there is any justice and honour left in this House, the British Government will face their responsibilities and confront the real problem in Northern Ireland, which is the failure of partition, and they will attempt to hasten the emergence of a united Ireland. If there is justice left in this House, the Government will call off their bloodhounds and take the British Army out of its present murderous rôle.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member to refer to members of the British Army as bloodhounds?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Strictly speaking, I should say that hon. Members of the British Parliament are not bloodhounds, but I do not think that that is a point of order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) was trying to be offensive.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member referred not to Members of this House, but to members of the British Army.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. McManus: These are my last words in this House perhaps for ever, perhaps for a very long time. The British and the British Army have terrorised and murdered enough for far too long in Ireland. I tell them now to take their bloody hands off our country. When I say that, I speak for all Irishmen. Before God Almighty, I mean every word of what I have just said.

1.29 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I shall not refer particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) save to say that I hope that all hon. Members, especially those who are not present, will study it with care. It is the authentic voice behind the gunman. It is the authentic voice of those who wish to destroy parliamentary democracy and the parliamentary process by force of arms.
I infinitely prefer the approach of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the debate. I must say that I deeply share his forebodings. I think that it would be almost impossible to explain at home in Ulster why the House of Commons should now be proposing to go into Recess until 18th October without some comfort or some word given to those who feel themselves in a position of almost impending disaster—that we should be proposing to go away without some comfort given to those people,


whether they be Protestant or Catholic, law-abiding people, not animated by the spirit of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Here are two or three figures which demonstrates how serious the escalation of the situation has been during the past five or six weeks. In July, there were no fewer than 94 explosions, some of them exceedingly serious. Translated into Great Britain terms, that would be about 4,500 explosions. There are people in the streets of Belfast who can never pass one night without hearing an explosion or the sound of gunfire or riot.
The Belfast Corporation announced a few days ago that every vehicle in its transport fleet has suffered damage, and very many have been destroyed. The claims which the Corporation has received to date for criminal damage as a result of what has happened amount to £16½ million. This is a British city. If it were the Greater London Council, on a pro-rata basis, the figure would be about £3,200 million worth of damage.
I remind the House of the nature of some of the damage, of, for example, the destruction of the Daily Mirror building, with £1 million worth of damage done. One thinks of the type of department store which has been damaged and destroyed the equivalent of something not unlike Selfridges destroyed in Oxford Street and large office blocks blown up in Regent Street.
Against that, can anyone wonder that we are reluctant to support a Motion that the House should go into recess until 18th October, without some kind of reassurance coming from Her Majesty's Government or from the House?
The situation was well summed up by yesterday's Belfast News Letter when it said, referring to the law-abiding community in Ulster,
For three years without end they have been told that the best brains available in London and Belfast have been grappling with their problem. Never once at any stage over that period have they heard an admission of error by statesman or high-ranking soldier. Yet the situation in Ulster today is as dangerous as ever before.
To say that fear stalks the land may sound trite, but it is true. And, on that score, it is also probably fair to say that there are more

Roman Catholics pinned down by fear and terror and intimidation than Protestants.
This the right hon. Gentleman himself said, and I agree with him.
What kind of comfort ought we to try to give to our people at home, Protestant and Roman Catholic, before we rise? I think that there are several things which my right hon. Friend can do. I am sorry that he had to say that he had no statement to make. It may well be—I would accept it—that there is a lot of constructive thinking about the situation going on, but at least we should be told what kind of subjects are being examined; and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may tell us of some of the various lines of thought.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said—I accept that it was intended to be constructive and helpful—that he would suggest a certain type of package. He suggested, for example, that one should resurrect the concept of the old Council of Ireland. He is right about the history of it. What happened was that the Council of Ireland was an arrangement enshrined in the original 1920 Act. But it was based upon there being a Parliament in Dublin similar to the Parliament at Stormont, and it was based upon the concept of both Parliaments being within the United Kingdom. However one might think it desirable, it is impossible to sell to the Ulsterman, the man who considers himself part of the United Kingdom, that a part of the United Kingdom should enter into a council, be it consultative or otherwise, with a State which is not part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Callaghan: What about the E.E.C.?

Captain Orr: I happen to share the right hon. Gentleman's view on the E.E.C., curiously enough, for different reasons.
If there is to be a council—I accept that some kind of consultation may take place—it should be on the basis of the United Kingdom. What one wants to see in our relationship with our neighbour South of the Border is a recognition of each other's integrity. What we want to see is simply a recognition that we have a common interest in the prevention and destruction of violence. We want to see a more constructive attitude on the part of politicians in the South. We wish to


see progress being made in economic matters, in the things which are of mutual concern, but we feel that, in return, what is recognised and supposed to be a friendly State should not allow its territory to be used for the training and the refuge of people who do not believe in the Parliamentary process at all.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Deny march on 12th August. I shall not go into the merits or the history of it. All I say to him is that experience has shown that it is much more dangerous to impose a ban upon a perfectly legitimate operation which has gone on for many years than it is to allow it to proceed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It requires much more exercise of the security forces, and, indeed, it would be a concession to threats of violence. I for one would oppose such a ban and I would say to my right hon. Friend that if he wants to bring down the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that would be the best way of doing it. I say that in all sincerity to him. Before we pass——

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves this question of the Londonderry Parade, would he put something right for the record? I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was making an extremely important speech because in a sense this is a comparatively minor matter. Would he make it clear that when the ban was imposed last year it was broken only by a tiny majority of people led by evilly-motivated men?

Captain Orr: Yes, I accept that. One other important subject touched on by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was the fact that there are far too many arms in Ulster. There is far too much talk of the formation of private armies. It is an exceedingly dangerous development although a very understandable one. Where law-abiding people in a village or part of a town in Ulster feel themselves threatened by this escalation of violence it is a very natural reaction for them to say, "We will defend ourselves, we will start patrols to look after our own places, we will see that this horror and terror does not come to our village".
It is exceedingly dangerous if that happens. I have found the great demand among the people in Ulster—and these are not people categorised as extremists but moderate sensible people—to be "For heaven's sake, let us have more say in our own defence". This is why I have said to the Home Secretary and others that there must be further thinking about how this can be done. It is not for a back bench Member to say exactly how a principle should be implemented. I have thrown out as a suggestion the possibility that we do what we did during the war—and we are at war now, the Home Secretary has said so—and form the Ulster Home Guard. The Home Guard was a highly efficient operation during the war. It was military, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, but it operated in what I believe to be the proper way, as a gendarmerie, very close to the police.
This is only one suggestion, but whatever it be, some means has to be found and the only way private armies will be prevented is if the community are allowed to become involved, with proper control, in their own defence. May I quote one more small piece from the leading article of yesterday's Belfast News Letter:
If the Army and the police cannot win the war alone, let them trust in the people more—and by this time they should know the people they can trust—and, with their cooperation, seek some entirely new initiative to help free us all from a scourge that is at present so mercilessly demoralising our society.
This is not a call for the recruitment of private armies, which everyone knows would be the most tragic of blunders, but a case to be examined seriously, for thousands of responsible citizens, Protestant and Catholic alike, being given some part to play in saving their families, their property and their whole way of life, from degredation, if not ultimately disaster.
Before we approve this Motion to adjourn I ask my right hon. Friend to say, on the question of recall, that there will be no hesitation whatever if the situation appears to deteriorate, in recalling the House as soon as possible. Secondly, will he please say that the principle I have enunciated, that the Ulster people should play a greater part in their own defence, may be conceded and that some kind of constructive thought is taking place on this subject—whether it be a permanent battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment, whether the Ulster


Defence Regiment in a different form, and doing a different job—[Interruption.] Of course the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not want that; he does not want the safety of the State to be maintained. He is not interested in the democratic process and we expect that from him. What I say is that decent, responsible, law-abiding people who believe in democracy, whose homes are in danger, will welcome the tone of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East although they may not agree with everything he says. They will reject the tone of the speeches of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to let Parliament go into recess without some words of comfort and reassurance for our people.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) gave us an account of the extent of violence and damage in Northern Ireland. This is something with which we have all been living for some time now. I wake up each morning—as I expect a good many hon. Members do—a little before 7 o'clock and I turn on the radio. What has it been, morning after morning, for weeks and months? A record of the wounding or killing of some young British soldier, English, Scots or Welsh or of the wounding or killing of some Irish civilian, man, woman or child. These appalling accounts are supplemented by television pictures of young children, encouraged to perform acts of violence. I have no doubt that people who do that believe that they are training children to fight in a good cause. I hope they will remember that it is much easier to teach children to be violent than to "unteach" them afterwards.
Part of the tragedy of the whole thing is that men have entered on a course of what must be called terror, violence and lawbreaking from honourable motives, deeply believing they are serving the right cause. It is one of the defects of human nature that after men on either side have done that beyond a certain time they become more in love with violence than with the original cause which inspired them. It is to this situation that we are drifting in Northern Ireland and I believe that before long the public in this country

will say that this cannot go on any longer. The Home Secretary said that the decision over the Derry march was one for the Government of Northern Ireland. If that decision, made one way or the other, results in increased violence it will be Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, our Armed Forces, who will pay for it.
It is on this point that we who are not Irish have the right to speak for our country as the Irishmen have the right to speak for their country. I believe that increasingly the public will say, "We will not have the lives of our young men placed at risk any longer." I have no doubt at all, and I do not think that anyone else has, that the soldiers will do courageously everything lawfully required of them but the time will come when the public will say that this cannot go on because the public will believe that it is going on to no purpose. Even the harshest critics of the British people have never said that they were lacking in courage and resolution. We have always been prepared even to go through ugly periods of history if we felt that there was some absolutely vital purpose to be served, some good result to be achieved.
We seem now to be going down a road of blood that leads nowhere and it is this which cannot go on much longer. I was a member of the Government which in 1969 took the decision that the British Armed Forces should take over the responsibility for law and order and security in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that was the right decision to take then. Indeed, it was almost universally welcomed because no one at that time could see any way forward except through that help. But we all knew that this could be only a holding operation. The hope in all our minds was that it would give the Government at Stormont an opportunity to carry through policies which would lead to reconciliation. We must now face the fact that reconciliation has not occurred. The time has passed when it was any use in trying to argue whose fault that was.
It is fair to say that the Government at Stormont have gone further on the road of reform than they have often been given credit for. As to the part played by others, I go a long way with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the behaviour of our troops and in his


condemnation of I.R.A. activities and of private armies. We all may have our own assessments as to who is more or less to blame, but we have passed the time when that matters. The historians will argue about that much later. The plain fact is that reconciliation has not been achieved.
Therefore—and I do not say this lightly—I have come very deeply to the conclusion that there can be no solution of this problem except in the context of a united Ireland. Here I go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East went. What struck me as tragic and what confirmed me in my view was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. He praised the tone of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, as we all should, but the one major constructive suggestion which my right hon. Friend made was turned down flat. That is why I think we must think of everything in a newer and larger dimension, which will make great demands on all the paries concerned.
I know that the attitude to what I have said of those who form the majority in the north is bound to be one of immediate repugnance. But they must face the alternative. We can talk in terms of more diligent police action to hunt down the terrorists or a gendarmerie, a defence regiment, or whatever we like to call it, to enforce the process of law. All the history of Anglo-Irish relations shows that it cannot be done in that way. Never mind whose fault it is that we are in the present situation: I do not believe that it can be done in that way.
We must also say to those in the north that if they believe that the situation can be restored by firm enforcement of the law the people in this island will very shortly say, "You do not do it at the risk of our people".

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The right hon. Gentleman must have heard his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and other Members refer to the fact that a large number of the Catholic population is being intimidated and terrorised. The fact is—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this—that not only the Protestant majority but the great majority of the Catholics are

content with the present state of affairs. Only a very small minority are out to overthrow the Constitution. To give in to them would be totally unacceptable.

Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree with that. I go thus far with the hon. Gentleman: I know that it is not as simple as to say that all Protestants want to maintain the union with Britain and all Catholics want to unite with the Republic. But if the hon. Gentleman suggests that the great majority of both faiths are perfectly content with the present constitutional situation, the facts simply do not bear out that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is echoing what has been said so often in Irish affairs—that one can get on without a major constitutional change when one has reached the point at which it is necessary.

Mr. H. J. Delargy: I may be of some assistance here. My right hon. Friend began by saying—and I was very pleased to hear it—that he was speaking, not for the people of Ireland, whether Catholics or Protestants, but on behalf of the people of England. Therefore, his argument has nothing to do with the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall not be pressed to give way again, because many hon. Members wish to speak.
I know that the concept of a united Ireland calls for a great effort of imagination, faith and good will on the part of those who are now the majority in the north. It will also make a great demand on the good faith and imagination of the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is now a State whose people are, in the vast majority, of the Roman Catholic faith. Its constitution and laws pay special regard to that faith. In the event of a united Ireland, it would be a State which contained a very large Protestant minority.
I realise—and the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has often reminded us of this—that this is not just a religious conflict. On the other hand, I am sure that unless the fears and anxieties of Protestants throughout Ireland are assuaged a solution will not be achieved. This is the part which the Republic of Ireland will have to play. It will have to recognise that the concept of a united Ireland is so great a prize


that it must go as far in devolution or Home Rule, or whatever it may be called, as is consistent with being one country. There must be a great willingness to give international guarantees and to have international observers. An honourable country need not think it any derogation of its sovereignty to be willing to do that for the sake of the constructive thing which could be achieved on this basis.
It should be a little easier for the Republic to do that, because it is pretty well what de Valera offered the United Kingdom in 1922. When the settlement, commonly called the Treaty, was established, he put forward a document, known as Document No. 2, which was a proposal for a united Ireland with the kind of measure of guarantees for the people in the north that I have been describing, such a united Ireland to be in permanent military association with the United Kingdom, recognising the Sovereign of this country, not as Sovereign of Ireland, but as head of the military association, foreshadowing almost the arrangement we now have in the Commonwealth.
Looking back, we all know that if matters had been settled on that basis the situation would have been infinitely better all round and many lives would have been saved. I doubt whether that offer is available to us now, but I take that part of it which contains the most massive pledges to the Protestants in the north. This is what the Republic of Ireland, if it genuinely wants a united Ireland, would have to do and be prepared to prove to the world that it is doing.
It is a lesson of Irish history that if we are to make any big step forward it is not only the political arrangements and the constitution-making which matter. There must be something which will stir the hearts and imagination of human beings. Clearly there is a responsibility on religious leaders. Since in a united Ireland the majority would be Catholic, an exceptional responsibility would rest on the leaders of that Church and His Holiness to say that if we can begin to think in terms of a united Ireland it would be the most earnest counsel of the Catholic Church to all the faithful in that country to behave in every way towards their Protestant fellow citizens as Christians are supposed to behave to

each other and not as they alas so often do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said that there was no possibility of abolishing the Border now. If that means this week or this month, we accept that. But I do not believe that till the parties concerned admit to themselves and each other that this is the context in which it can be solved—the context of a united Ireland—we will get anywhere. I recognise the enormous difficulty of anyone on the Front Bench on either side, and the practical impossibility of a member of a Government, saying that at present, but I think that sooner or later it has got to be said, and that the idea is bound to spread.
I shall be told—I shall, no doubt, be told emphatically during the rest of this debate—that this will not work now. My answer to that is that in the end nothing else will work. How long will it be in months, years or lives before that is realised?

2.1 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I think there is a danger that the air of reason and logic which the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) deployed in his speech may come close to the impracticability and unreason of his conclusion. He tells us that the only solution of this appalling problem is a united Ireland. I would not for a moment be such a fool as to suggest that at no time ever in the future will there be any hope of a solution, whether it be a federation or association between the two parts of Ireland, if we are talking over half a century or whatever; but to tell us that because he believes that no other solution will work we must consider this as a practical proposition in the near or immediate future is unreason carried to the point of folly, because to try to enforce such an idea at this moment is a prescription for civil war compared with which what is happening now would be a minor incident.
Apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem even to have recognised or to have read what the leaders of both wings of the I.R.A. are saying at this moment. He seems to imagine that what is happening in Northern Ireland is no more than a nationalist crusade for a united Ireland.


It is nothing of the sort, because one wing of the I.R.A. is at this moment an international revolutionary organisation which is dedicated to the destruction of the Southern Irish régime at least to the extent that it is dedicated to the destruction of the United Kingdom constitution and the régime in Northern Ireland. All he is doing is to make it easier for the Republic—as I believe it will soon anyway—to be subject to precisely the kind of violent insurrection as is now happening in Ulster. If he thinks this will make a solution easier he should reconsider what at the moment the I.R.A. stands for and what it is saying.
While I am on that subject I should like to make an answer to the hon. Member opposite who gave us that horrifying story of the civilian population under an army of occupation régime. He might consider the conclusion of an article in The Times last Friday from a reporter who had been interviewing various I.R.A. chiefs. I would say that The Times is not generally considered to be a mouthpiece of Protestant reaction. After interviews with all these people he concludes at the end of his article:
It is impossible not to be struck both by the extent to which the Army and the police are forced to fight the I.R.A. with their hands tied tightly behind their backs and by how well aware the I.R.A. are of the advantages this confers on them.
This is, of course, the point, and why we on this side of the House and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) are anxious that there should be some message of appreciation of the situation to go to the people of Northern Ireland who are suffering at this moment.
It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Fulham to say that the people of England, Scotland and Wales will not allow this situation, this loss of blood of British soldiers, to continue any longer. Does he not realise that it is precisely what he forecast—that there would come a time when the people on the mainland will echo that "no longer"—which is the objective of the I.R.A. leaders at this moment? The whole purpose of this campaign is to keep it going long enough for the people over here to say that it is not worth while going on pouring out the blood of British soldiers any longer.
Because this has happened in Cyprus, in Aden, in Palestine, and we have got used to it in the context of the colonial situation, it is only too easy—as he did—to draw a parallel and say that this is a similar situation. This is not a similar situation. This is not a case of occupying a colony with the Army in the midst of a hostile population, or even of a hostile majority.
There is another difference. It may have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that this is part of the United Kingdom in which there is armed rebellion against the Crown going on at this moment. It is no good saying—I am a little surprised to hear a Privy Councillor saying—that in the United Kingdom a situation could arise in which we would not be prepared to try to maintain law and order any longer. Does he think that if we abrogate responsibility in Belfast and Londonderry we shall not have exactly the same thing happening in Glasgow and Liverpool? And even from what we have heard in this House today there will be no lack of people to encourage that.
This is the United Kingdom, and it is the job of this House of Parliament to accept the responsibility for maintaining law and order and protecting the lives and property of United Kingdom citizens, particularly when in a province of the United Kingdom the overwhelming majority—the overwhelming majority—of the inhabitants not only want but demand that this responsibility should be carried out. It is the job of the United Kingdom Government here at Westminster and in Whitehall to do this.
If their hands, as an unprejudiced observer, indeed, an observer who, from what one can gather from The Times report, leans slightly in sympathy towards the I.R.A., is prepared to say at the end of the day that the Army and police are fighting an armed rebellion with their hands tied behind their backs, we are entitled, as the people of Ulster are entiled, to ask, who tied the hands of the Army and police behind their backs? Are they still tied? Is anybody going to untie them?
Is anybody going to tell us before we adjourn what change there is in the situation? Are we simply going to be told that this is a situation of containment and that it can and will go on for


ever? A policy simply of containment, where violence is growing and the number of arms in private hands or in those of para-military organisations has grown, is not enough and will not work. We cannot, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, leave the majority to believe that if the United Kingdom Government and the Stormont Government are incapable of providing protection for their lives and property there is no alternative for them but to protect themselves. As he said, that is a most dangerous situation that we face.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said. I view this situation with the gravest forebodings. If things go on as they are, the risk of a civil war, the fall of the present Government in Northern Ireland and the emergence of a far more dangerous Administration under extremist leaders is very real. Ulster is perhaps not so far from civil war at this moment, a civil war which, as I said, might spread to the streets of Glasgow, Liverpool and other cities on this side of the water. We have a right to be reassured, and the people of Ulster have a right to reassurance, before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. In addition, we should have an absolute undertaking that, if the situation gets any worse, the House will be recalled so that it can bring further pressure on the Government to do something about this ghastly situation.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to speak for long, because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. With my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), I welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart).
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West was in Derry when the British troops came in 1969, and I was there at the start. We went to my right hon. Friend at the time and said, "For goodness sake, do not let the march go forward. Our impression is that if the

march goes on there will be trouble." We give this same message to the Home Secretary today. The situation now is far worse than it was in 1969; it is potentially more explosive. Not only should the march on 12th August be banned, but the services of thanksgiving to be held in the Diamond should also be banned. There should be a complete block in Derry of any celebration by either side because the situation there is so dangerous. Recent events in that city have caused the feelings of the people to rise considerably.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke about gunmen, and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke of the need for a militia and an army. His was the voice of the gunman. Although we have words about "law and order, democracy, progressive people on all sides, good feeling and majority opinion", what he was advocating was the return of the B Specials under a different guise.
If Her Majesty's Government were to think in terms of a Home Guard of the type described by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, a full-time battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment which went outside the present remit of the U.D.R. of guarding frontier posts and installations, there would be real fear among the minority in Northern Ireland that they were seeing a return of the B Specials, and this we could not countenance.

Captain Orr: They would be lawful.

Mr. McNamara: What was more lawful than the B Specials when they were in Belfast? What was more lawful than the guns they were using in August, 1969 in Belfast—B Special guns? There was no I.R.A. then, no I.R.A. in Belfast, no I.R.A. in Derry. No, these were the Orange Lodgers, the Paisleyites and the like.
The right hon. Gentleman must understand that if there were a return to the policies advocated by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, there would be a real fear among the minority. Far from isolating the gunman, far from pushing him to one side to allow reason to prevail and to try the counsels which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was talking about, the gunmen will find a welcome and a refuge with the minority.


This will be because of the policies advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. It little behoves him, or any of his hon. Friends, to talk about democracy, the sanctity of the United Kingdom and the majority verdict when it was his party that first started the rebellion against the British Crown over the independence of Northern Ireland. It was his forbears and his friend Galloper Smith and others who caused it before the First World War. People say, "Ah, that was 50 years ago." The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said that we must not think for another 50 years of solving the Irish problem and trying to bring peace and decency there——

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say that we must not think for 50 years of trying to solve the Irish problem. I said that any hope before a longish period of trying to impose a united Ireland was doomed to disappointment. I said that if we were thinking of 50 years, I was not prepared to rule out some kind of association if it could be by agreement.

Mr. McNamara: I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "50 years", but the record will show it. I think I have the general tenor of his idea. We have had 50 years of union with this country, and it has been one long story of repression turning the screw, leaving it off, turning the screw and leaving it off until the civil rights movement started in 1968, when we had an opportunity for a break-through. Our fear, whether conscious or unconscious, and whether or not because of their association with hon. Members representing Northern Irish constituencies, is that the Government, far from holding the ring, have moved strongly and forcefully in favour of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Orange Lodgers. It is remarkable that in debate after debate in the House mention is rarely made of the strongest organisation in the place, namely, the Orange Lodge.
There are certain things which we should like to see. First, no policy of internment should be adopted by the Government. If in trying to defend the rule of law, the rule of law is suspended, this is a paradox and a contradiction

which can never succeed. Further sullen-ness will be created, further fears of repression and further opportunities for injustice in a society which has already far too many.
Secondly, we want positive action to bring in all the guns, legal and illegal, whether they are held by Catholics or Protestants and including those which are held by farmers to shoot foxes. We want them all in.
Thirdly, we want a clear and unmistakable undertaking that there will be no militia, no Home Guard, no full-time defence battalion to undertake anything other than defending the frontiers.
Fourthly, we should like to see some of the initiatives advocated by my right hon. Friend taken seriously to heart. We should like proper consultations about the future of Ireland with the people who are concerned with it, with the people of the North and the people of the South, sitting down together. The moment that is achieved by this Government or any Government we shall perhaps be bringing back to the land of our fathers an opportunity for peaceful progress which they have not had for a long time.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation Act, 1971.
2. Finance Act, 1971.
3. Medicines Act, 1971.
4. Hijacking Act, 1971.
5. Mineral Workings Act, 1971.
6. Industrial Relations Act, 1971.
7. Social Security Act, 1971.
8. Education (Milk) Act, 1971.
9. Civil Aviation Act, 1971.
10. Housing Act, 1971.
11. British Transport Docks Act, 1971.
12. Torbay Corporation (No. 2) Act, 1971.
13. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1971.
14. London Transport (No. 2) Act, 1971.
15. Oxfordshire County Council Act, 1971.


16. Bournemouth Corporation Act, 1971.
17. Exeter Corporation Act, 1971.
18. Flintshire County Council Act, 1971.
19. Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1971.
20. Scunthorpe Corporation Act, 1971.
21. Aldridge-Brownhills Urban District Council Act, 1971.
22. Chichester Harbour Conservancy Act, 1971.
23. Isle of Wight County Council Act, 1971.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Question again proposed.

2.20 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) rose——

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I appreciate that you Sir, are in a little difficulty. This debate is not taking the normal form, and many of us who are anxious to raise the question of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and who appreciate the concern of Northern Ireland have been reluctant to intervene in the debate on Northern Ireland. Could you, Sir, in these unusual circumstances give some guidance on the timetable of the debate?

Mr. Bob Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend since I have been waiting to raise the situation in North-East England. I, too, would like you to give guidance as to when we might have an opportunity to participate in the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I assure hon. Members that I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to raise a considerable variety of issues. I intend to call a limited number of Members. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wishes to intervene in the debate. I will do the best I can. As always, I shall be immensely assisted if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be brief.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Could you, Mr. Speaker, give some guidance as to the length of this particular debate?

Mr. Speaker: No. I can give no indication about the length of debates on the Question now before the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Since I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, including hon. Members from Northern Ireland, I shall seek to be as brief as possible.
The first matter I wish to underline is the fact that the vast majority of people in Ulster—and I refer not only to the Protestants but also to a large section of the Roman Catholic community—are concerned about the escalation of bombing in the City of Belfast and in other areas of Northern Ireland. When the people of Northern Ireland switch on their radios in the morning they know they will hear of another round of bombing and violence. Those people look back to January when there were 16 bomb outrages, and to February when some 43 such outrages were recorded. In March the figure was 31; in April, 38; in May, 43; in June, 46; and in the month that has just passed there was a total of 94 outrages.
Let me make it clear that the Irish Republican Army is out for the very objective that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart): it is out for a united Ireland. Nothing will give its members more succour and strength in their attacks in Northern Ireland at present than the suggestion that if they keep up the pressure, if they keep the bombing going, if they resist the acts of the Army to bring them under control, they will achieve the object on which they are set. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland will not have a united Ireland.
The one matter that goes right down into their hearts is the fact that they are part and parcel of the United Kingdom and want to remain so.
We heard the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) attack the Unionist people who, he said, were the people of the gun, violence and murder. He went on to speak about other people concerned in violence. He then launched an attack upon the British Army which, he said, was carrying


out a campaign of murder. I want the House to mark the fact that he said there was a campaign of murder at the present time in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether some of the hon. Members who sit alongside the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and who appeared to assert to many of his remarks, repudiate that accusation against members of the British Army. It appears to be a popular exercise to denounce the members of the Ulster Special Constabulary, and indeed the very same accusations which are now being made against the British Army have already been made against members of that Constabulary.
The Ulster people are not asking the British people to carry this burden. The people of Ulster are prepared to defend with their own lives, and nobody else's, their right to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that the people of Ulster would ask British soldiers to carry out something which the people of Ulster are not allowed to understake on their own.
I am sure that as reports of this debate go out today the Irish Republican Army will gain great succour from the type of speech we have heard that there will be some sort of political deal and that the Protestants of the North of Ireland must reconcile themselves to become part and parcel of a united Ireland.
I turn to matters raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I want to deal with the subject of intimidation. I can go some of the way with the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, but today in the present situation it would be very hard to prove that there was mass intimidation by the majority of the minority. That could not be proved. I have always denounced intimidation from whatever source and in relation to whoever engages in it. If Protestants threaten Roman Catholics they are wrong and are to be condemned, and if Roman Catholics threaten Protestants they are wrong and are equally to be condemned.
Let us make no mistake about it. There are areas of Northern Ireland where the Irish Republican Army is well dug in and has tremendous strength. It has been said that the police and army have been fighting with their hands behind their backs.
In Moltke Street and in other areas the past few days have seen the intimidation of Protestants by Roman Catholics who are in strength in those areas where the I.R.A. is in strength. Protestant people have had to leave their homes and at present are living in a community centre in the Sandy Row area. There is also intimidation of Roman Catholic people by the Irish Republican Army. In Belfast, there are protection rackets run by the I.R.A. Those who want to keep themselves in business have to pay for the right to do business. These rackets must be stopped. Roman Catholics have complained to me about them. I had a Roman Catholic business woman with me last night. She told me that she could not carry on her business unless she was prepared to accept the rule of the I.R.A.
It is not in the interests of any section of the community, whether it be Protestant or Roman Catholic, that the armed thugs of the I.R.A. should not be brought before our courts of law and tried for their crimes. That must happen, and it must happen immediately.
The Irish Republican Army has always been with us. It has been with us since the Northern Ireland State was first set up. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the I.R.A. was not there. The I.R.A. has been there all the time, and the whole campaign is aimed at the end which is now being achieved. Any weakness on the part of this Government in not facing up to the rebellion will succour the I.R.A. and give it more support.
Today, we have heard about a united Ireland and all that will take place in it. We have been told that Protestants will have every right guaranteed. But let us consider the present situation in the City of Londonderry, where objections are being made to a Protestant march, ignoring completely the fact that there have been Roman Catholic marches in the city during the past few weeks without objection being taken. The route that is to be taken by the Apprentice Boys of Derry this year is one that leads through the Waterside, which is a Protestant area of the City of Londonderry. How in the name of goodness can Protestants think that they would have civil and religious liberty in a united Ireland when the majority are not allowed to demonstrate or go to their places of worship in the


City of Londonderry? We could not accept any assurances from a united Ireland.
There are other matters concerning the Republic which the right hon. Member for Fulham did not mention. I am sure that he is aware that Mr. Lynch and his Government, under their constitution, claim that they control the North of Ireland. They claim that they are the legal Government of the North of Ireland. They claim that they have jurisdiction over the North of Ireland. Until Mr. Lynch is prepared to accept that the people of Northern Ireland have their own constitution and their own Parliament, what decent-minded person could negotiate on those terms? It cannot be done. The Republic of Ireland must recognise the right of the majority in the north to decide their own destiny. We feel that our destiny is linked with the United Kingdom.
Another matter which I must mention concerns this council of Ireland. Such a council was proposed in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is aware. That Act envisaged a different type of Government in Dublin from that which exists at present. The circumstances that suggested the setting up of a council of Ireland at that time were entirely different from those which prevail today. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland would look at any suggestion to set up a council of Ireland as the beginning of a sell-out of their constitutional position.
I am sorry to detain the House so long. I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I have come to this House on many occasions intending to speak and I have not had the opportunity to do so. I appreciate the sense of frustration which is felt by hon. Members.
It must be made perfectly clear that no policy can succeed until the rebellion is put down. It is impossible to parley with rebels. It is impossible to negotiate with those whose hands are stained with innocent blood. It cannot be done. There can be no let-up in the campaign against the Irish Republic Army. Of course its members do not want to be interned. They want to be loose to do

their bombings, their blastings, their shootings and their murders. Those in opposition do not want internment. However, I want to see them tried properly in our courts. I want to see their guilt proved, and I want to see them put away.
It must be remembered that it is the lives of people which are now at stake. The Home Secretary has told us that we are at war. I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, but I know that the coming days in Northern Ireland will be very serious. They will be days of bloodshed and violence. I appeal to the Government to see that every step is taken to detain, even by imprisonment, those who are carrying out this campaign of bloodshed and violence. It must stop. No country can exist in the present conditions of Northern Ireland.
There is a serious unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. Everyone, be he Roman Catholic or Protestant, is suffering. People need employment. But what is happening in Londonderry, where the Republic movement is actually burning factories which have been erected, cannot lead to more employment. It can lead only to a worsening of the situation.
Every citizen of the land has the right to work and the right to worship God as he wants. He also has a responsibility to the Government to respect the basic principle of the law. That is all that the Protestants ask of their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, many of whom respect the law. We ask them to respect the Government and the Parliament under which they were born by the providence of God.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I do not wish to speak in this debate, but we are considering the Motion for the Summer Adjournment which, by tradition, is a debate in which hon. Members raise a number of subjects——

Hon. Members: It has already been asked.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Then I will not pursue it.

Mr. John Gorst: On a further point of order. Is it possible for the Chamber's amplification system to be checked? During the last speech, the sound produced was somewhat


strident and too loud. Can something be done about it?

2.39 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In years to come, when we have an opportunity to look back at this debate, I believe that it will be regarded as a watershed in relations between the two islands. Speeches have been made today from this side of the House, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) which at last indicate that there is a clear recognition that the partition experiment in Ireland has failed. We have had 50 years of one-party Government in that part which is allegedly an integral part of the United Kingdom. There is no possibility by democratic franchise of changing that one-party government system. Yet, Britain throughout the years has had changes of government, and the voice of democracy has always been heard at successive elections.
In the unique conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must clearly see that partition as a solution has not solved Ireland's problems. Indeed, partition, wherever it has been tried—in Vietnam, Korea, East and West Germany, Pakistan and India—has not proved a signal success. But in Ireland, 50 years after the formation of the first Unionist Government, we find it necessary in 1971 to again appeal to this House of Commons, which was the architect of partition, to realise that what happened on that occasion is no longer the solution to the problems which beset Ireland today.
I listened to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he adopted the rôle of self-appointed spokesman for the British Army. He has defended the British Army in every action which it has taken since being brought into Northern Ireland in 1969. Yet I recall the same hon. Gentleman at Stormont only a few months ago vehemently and vociferously condemning the activities of the British Army because it did not on that occasion fall into line with what he said then. The hon. Gentleman in another capacity in Northern Ireland has consistently levelled criticism at the

activities of the British Army. Yet he comes to this House and tries to speak with the voice of reason, believing that people on this side of the Irish Sea do not read the Irish newspapers or watch Irish television. The sheer hypocrisy of his attitude today will not go unnoticed by the constituents he claims to represent both here and in Northern Ireland.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East made a most important announcement when he suggested that the Council of Ireland should be brought into existence. His remarks have been reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. I believe that in the next few months this could lead to a positive change of attitude and of policy on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House. If that is the ultimate effect of what is said today, I believe that it can only lead to future happiness and progress for all the people of Britain and Ireland.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) seemed to hinge his argument on the inviolability of the United Kingdom as at present constituted. He said that we cannot tolerate any section of those who are now United Kingdom citizens rebelling against the State. But he is old enough to remember that in 1916 there was a United Kingdom not of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but of Great Britain and Ireland. The majority of the people of Ireland set out to achieve self-government for their country. When the British Government found it impossible to beat that section of citizens of the United Kingdom, as it then was, they had to talk to them. They had to talk to rebels.
The attitude expressed by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it is a sin to talk to those whom they term as rebels. But, throughout the history of the British Empire and Commonwealth, the British Government have found it necessary to talk to people whom formerly they were inclined to call rebels and who are now, by self-government of their own countries, most respectable citizens.
I turn to the immediate effects of what is happening in Northern Ireland. What started the Protestant backlash in 1969? It was not brought about by the activities of the I.R.A. That backlash was


brought about because the then Labour Government had pressurised the Northern Ireland Government to introduce the most elementary reforms which would ensure civil rights and social justice for everyone in Northern Ireland. The extremists within the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland recognised that if civil rights were to be made available to everyone it would lead to the destruction of their party.
That is what brought about the backlash. That is what brought the Unionist extremist gunmen on to the streets with their petrol bombs, rifles, and other arms. That is why Catholics throughout Northern Ireland faced a holocaust which they have not faced since partition. That is why many people of the minority section in Northern Ireland have had to look elsewhere for protection. That is why many of them sought to give their allegiance to anyone who would afford them protection if similar circumstances were to arise. The backlash was brought about because of the reluctance and intransigence of the Unionist Party to initiate reforms which would ensure civil rights and social justice for everyone.
This afternoon, yesterday and last week we had the representatives of the Unionist Party blackmailing the Home Secretary. They have told him that if he does not take steps to introduce more repression on the minority in Northern Ireland they will call for his removal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."]
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who is not present, has repeatedly said on Northern Ireland television and radio that the reason that they have been engaging in all this representation to the Home Secretary was to inject some steel into his back so that he would know how to deal with the minority in Northern Ireland. I advise the Home Secretary to watch the form in which that steel may come. I predict that it will come in the form of a knife.
The Unionist Party claims to be British and to accept British standards, but in Northern Ireland, when asked to implement British standards, it has signally failed to do so.
When we analyse what was said by the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) we clearly discern the voice of the Unionist extremist gunman. He has clearly said—when his speech is analysed

there will be no doubt—that if we seek to change the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland there will be a vicious Protestant backlash. He has said that a million Protestants in Northern Ireland cannot be coerced; that every Protestant will come into the Unionist camp. That is not in accordance with the facts. There are many Protestants in Northern Ireland who believe in the eventual reunification of that country.
Irrespective of what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I wonder whether he will accept a little lesson in history. The founders of the Irish Republicanism were Protestants—Wolfe Tone, Henry Joy McCracken, William Orr, and others. I could go on ad infinitum. The whole concept of Irish Republicanism came from non-Catholics. So let us not lump the whole million Protestants into the category of those who will go out and murder their Catholic brothers if there is any talk of a Republic.
I concede that at the present time there is a dangerous situation there. It has been brought about by the intransigence of the Right-wing of the Unionist Party, which in turn has led to a counter-movement. That is why the Irish Republican Army has become respectable in certain districts of Northern Ireland. People recognise that even though reforms are on the Statute Book they are there because of action by this House, and not by the Stormont Government. I was there when the reforms were debated and went through Parliament, but the Unionist back benches were empty. That is why there has been violence and counter-violence in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland there is a sadly and tragically polarised community. One section of the community believes that the answer to all Northern Ireland's problems is to introduce internment, to recall the B-Specials, to rearm the police force, and to heap further repression on those who would be opposed to the Unionist philosophy. Another section believes that the answer to Ireland's problem is to abolish Stormont and get the British Army out of Northern Ireland tomorrow. I have no hesitation in saying that those attitudes would lead to ultimate disaster not only for the people of Northern


Ireland, but for the island of Ireland and the people in these islands.
Today it has been recognised that there must be a rapprochement. This is because of the attitude adopted by Unionist Members from Northern Ireland last week, when they said that in the coming meeting between the Taoiseach of the Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Mr. Lynch should be told that sanctions will be imposed unless he interns the Irish Republican Army, and that unless he co-operates with the Right-wing of the Unionist Party all trade between the two islands will be cut off.
How stupid can they get? How can there be peace in Ireland when they are saying that the British Government should attempt to dictate, by means of sanctions or otherwise, what the Government of the Republic should do? They are, by their own logic, admitting that there can never be peace in Northern Ireland until a fairer attitude is adopted by the Government there with the support of a friendly Republic.
It must be recognised that all the solutions suggested during the last 50 years have failed to solve the problem. I have condemned violence from the day and hour I entered into political life. I do not believe that unity in Ireland will be achieved one second sooner by the killing of a British soldier, or by the letting-off of any kind of explosives. I have continually condemned that kind of action, but I recognise the frustration that there is among those in Northern Ireland who feel that they have been oppressed by the Right-wing Unionist Party since the inception of that State.
The Council of Ireland idea advocated by my right hon. Friend has considerable merit. As the leader of a political party in Northern Ireland I have said that we have withdrawn from that House, that we shall have no further say in the deliberations of that House, because throughout the years we have realised that our pleas are not listened to. We cannot act as a parliamentary Opposition in the way that would be accepted in this House. I believe that if the Council of Ireland is resurrected my own party and all opposition Members from Stormont should have some say in the deliberations that take

place. One can readily see what would happen if a completely Unionist Government in Stormont were asked to have discussions with the Republic. The situation that would result would be that envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and others.
I think that enough has been said in this debate to make the Government realise that some new initiative is demanded to improve relationships between the two countries, but the minimum demand must be to the effect that this Government must act through the G.O.C. in Northern Ireland who has said that there can be no military solution to the Northern Ireland problem. He must be in a position to say that there will be no march in Derry on 12th August. He must be in a position to say that, because many thousands of decent people, including Protestants, know that the march is being held as a sectarian provocation to the vast majority of the people in Derry. The hon. Member for Antrim, North ran away last week and had himself initiated as an Apprentice Boy so that he could march in Derry on 12th August.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement which is completely and absolutely without foundation? I have been an Apprentice Boy of Derry for almost 20 years.

Mr. Fitt: I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that the hon. Gentleman is the queerest looking Apprentice Boy I have seen.
I do not lightly condemn the British Army in Northern Ireland because I recognise the impossible task which has been foisted on to the shoulders of young boys from Birmingham, Coventry, Glasgow and Wales. They are trying to carry out an impossible job, in an impossible situation, without the help of their own Government, who should take steps to make sure that their stay in Northern Ireland is not for a moment longer than is necessary. As a representative of the working class, I have every sympathy with the relatives of the young Army boys who have lost their lives, just as I have every sympathy for the relatives of the young boys in my area who have been killed during the last 50 years.
It appears to me that during the past few months the Army has adopted a more belligerent attitude to the Roman Catholic minority than was ever the case before. I question whether this is a policy change, whether the Army has been told to act in this way. I know that a handbook is being issued to Army personnel in Northern Ireland giving them a short summary of Northern Ireland's history and telling them of the various attitudes to be expected.
I have no doubt that that handbook was not in existence under the previous Administration. I believe that it has been issued by the present Tory Government. It has been quoted copiously at Stormont, and some of the weird utterances in it could not do other than impress the young British soldier and make him think that in a Catholic minority district he is dealing with a lot of savages. I am certain that this handbook was not in the hands of the Army under the previous Labour Government. One cannot but expect a young British soldier brought into the area in such circumstances to react to what he is told.
The Government may not be able to admit this in the House, but the searches which have taken place during the last three or four weeks have proved to be an abject failure. Nothing has been found in 96 per cent. of the houses that have been ransacked at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. The only effect of the dawn raids has been to isolate and polarise the two communities in Northern Ireland. Professional people—people who had previously had no involvement in the trouble, such as doctors, solicitors and business people, who had a stake in the community—are now freely associating themselves with those who have condemned the activities of the British Army in these dawn raids.
There are 103,000 unlicensed guns in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which are in the hands of the Unionist supporters. How can any member of the minority feel that he is being given just treatment when his whole district has been ransacked in the early hours of the morning in an effort to find arms and when no attempt is made to disarm other people who could bring about a holocaust similar to that which took place in 1969?
I have taken more time than usual, but this situation must concern everyone in Northern Ireland. I hope that during the recess Ministers will pay close attention to everything that happens in Northern Ireland and to any representations that are made, and that if necessary there will be an immediate recall of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) I should like to indicate the intentions of the Chair, as far as it is permitted to do so. After the right hon. Member for Ashford I shall call the Leader of the Opposition. It is quite clear that we must continue this debate, on the Question of the House's rising this day and adjourning until Monday 18th October, for the rest of today's sitting until Five o'clock. I apologise to those hon. Members whose topics were selected for the Adjournment debate. It is better that I should say now that I see no prospect of any of their subjects being reached, and therefore they and their advisers can stand down.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I shall seek to make only one point. This is neither the day nor the hour to rehearse one's deeper feelings about Ireland's destiny. My point is that to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has referred, namely, the Derry March today week.
A crucial decision must be taken about that march—either by the Northern Ireland Government or by Her Majesty's Government. It will be a crucial decision. I want to put one consideration into the minds of hon. Members opposite. I beg them to accept that this decision is not as easy to make as it might appear. I was in Derry last year, when the march did not take place. I go there as an eye-witness fairly often, and I saw the Orange march the other day. I should like to think that when the decision is taken about the Derry march it will be based on military advice, because whatever happens the soldiers will have the most difficult part of the contract to fulfil. The decision should be taken on military advice, and with as few political considerations as possible.
Hon. Members opposite may feel that it would be an act of total irresponsibility to allow the march to go forward, but


there are circumstances in which the cancellation of these marches can give rise to more trouble than allowing them to proceed. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was not quite right in his history of last year's events. The march was called off, but assembly was permitted. After assembly had taken place in Derry a march was attempted, and at its conclusion tear gas was used, the troops were brought in, and the day ended with, perhaps, more difficulties than would have been the case had the march been permitted.
Other hon. Members have referred to crises arising in Northern Ireland through the violence of the minority. We know about that. I want to say a word about the other crisis, which arises more and more as a crisis of confidence among the majority—a crisis of confidence in themselves. I know that what I am about to say is not acceptable in all quarters of the House, but my view is that confidence is failing because the majority feel that they are not trusted to carry on their own affairs and to be responsible for their own security. They are not trusted on occasions like today week to act in a manner that is other than damaging.
I believe that the Derry boys could be persuaded to march in a responsible fashion if they were asked to co-operate and avoid provocation. That sort of act of confidence would have a better effect on the affairs on Northern Ireland that some hon. Members believe.
I hope that the decision will be based on military advice, and that it will be accepted that we ought not to regard it as an act of dereliction of responsibility if the march is allowed to proceed. This is a very evenly balanced decision.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton) rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition I should point out that many hon. Members still wish to speak on various matters, and it will help if speeches are short.

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): On a point of order. It may help the House if I say that in order to allow as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to speak it

is my intention to rise as late as I can before the deadline at five o'clock. I shall do my best to allow as many Members as possible to speak before I rise.

3.6 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I intend to be brief. It is unusual, but not unprecedented, for the Leader of the Opposition to intervene in debates on the Adjournment of the House. Indeed, in the recent period of office of the Labour Government the Leader of the Opposition occasionally spoke in these debates. I should not have done so had it not been for the real urgency that I felt—following my visit to Scotland yesterday—about an issue in respect of which I feel further assurances are required from the Government before the House rises this afternoon.
On both personal and constituency grounds I should be the last person to underrate the importance of the debate that has been taking place on Northern Ireland. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Ministers this August will not have to face the situation that we had to face two years ago, and that they will be able to have an uninterrupted rest during that period. Within the limited rules of order which must apply in Adjournment debates our position on Northern Ireland has been stated by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who carried with such distinction and coolness the position of Home Secretary at a most difficult and critical time, when we were not merely following a policy—as the present Government have been doing, in following a policy largely laid down by ourselves—but were having to create a policy at a time of great risk and uncertainty as to how this affair would turn out.
If, for a moment, I turn away from the Apprentice Boys of Derry—including the wholly unqualified apprentice who has addressed the House this afternoon—to the apprentice boys of the Clyde and other threatened areas, I know that the House will not misunderstand. Yesterday I saw the urgency of this problem in a way that is very difficult to appreciate through debates in this House, and still more through the debates that must have taken place in the Cabinet Room.
This subject was debated in the House on Monday, and I do not intend to go


over all the arguments. There was a vote, and 280 hon. Members opposite voted in support of the proposition put before the House by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. But I feel that it would be wrong for the House now to go off for so long as is proposed in the Motion without clear assurances from the Government about their future course of action in this matter.
It will be generally agreed—I am trying to be as uncontroversial as I can—that the visit of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Glasgow on Tuesday was not an unqualified success. Nobody who attended his meeting, from any point of view—as a member of the Scottish T.U.C., a shop steward, a member of the chamber of commerce, a member of the C.B.I, or any other grouping, including civic heads—could have felt for a moment that that exercise of the right hon. Gentleman, undertaken far too late—it should have been undertaken before a decision was arrived at—was a success, from the point of view of helping to find a solution to the problem or even as a public relations exercise.
But one thing that the right hon. Gentleman said in Glasgow I took at face value, as I think the House is entitled to take it. I have read the newspaper reports. They record him as having said that he was ready to think again—that therefore, presumably, the Government and the Prime Minister are ready to think again on this question—that he was ready to study alternatives. These were the impressions which he left behind him in Glasgow and which where reported, with singular unanimity, in the Press of every political shade and opinion.
Of course, he has had proposals put before him which it is right that the House should expect him now to be considering. I should like assurances about this before the House rises. There was one proposal, an ingenious one, which was published in the Press, from a representative of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce—Mr. McMichael, who was expressing a personal view and not speaking officially for the Chamber of Commerce. He was also a member of the original working party set up by Mr. Hepper, which led to the establishment of Upper Clyde Shipuilders.
This proposal—I will not weary the House with all the details—is not one that I would support, because, in so far as

he proposes that the Government should take over responsibility for the yards for five years in order to facilitate a rundown at the rate of 500 workers every six months, that is not a proposal that we could support, because we take a different view about the viability of these yards.
But on the other hand is the idea—itself a variant of a proposal made some weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—that the Government should take over the financial responsibility and advance the necessary finance for a long enough period. It might be five years or some other period: let us not argue about what the period should be, because we take the view, of which I am more than ever convinced after yesterday and my detailed discussions with management and the T.U.C. and the rest, that this is a viable institution—made less viable, perhaps, by certain artificial restrictions imposed by the Government last winter on the placing of orders, but it is a viable institution.
Its problem is one of acute cash flow, of cash to deal with the situation in which there was a tremendous transformation of the yards, where through the degree of co-operation by the unions and their members in working and making a success of reorganisation such as has never been seen on the Clyde or in these yards in the past, the prospect is held out of viability; it would be a crime to strike it down, to disintegrate it, without giving it a chance. One might be wrong: at the end of the day, one might find that it could not become viable, but all the evidence that I heard yesterday suggests that it is likely to be viable and that it is being squeezed, it is being strangled, because of the financial grip rather than because of any regard to the efficiency of the yards.
That is one proposal, a variant of the McMichael proposal—that, for a period of five years or any period that we might agree, the Government should provide finance to help these processes of reorganisation and workers' participation, which are welcomed by the management, and see what results can be produced.
The second proposal is to even out the cyclical variations, great as they are, in ordering. Now that these yards are pioneering new standards of vessels, like the Clyde, the projected super-Clyde, and the


bulk carriers on a specialised basis—they should turn them out one after another all over the world. The Government should even out the flow of orders by means of pre-production orders: perhaps six of the Clyde, six of the super-Clyde and six of the bulk-carriers.
There are precedents. We ourselves, as a Government, helped to even out the violent fluctuations in orders for machine tools by placing pre-production orders. All Governments have done it by producing advance factories, which are a form of pre-production order, instead of waiting for the detailed specifications. And of course we did it in respect of computers. It is interesting that, the very day after the Government's decision on Upper Clyde, they announced further pre-production orders in respect of computers.
Before the House rises, therefore, I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Government wil consider those proposals—those which were put before him in Glasgow on Tuesday and those which I put yesterday, being to some extent a variant from them, and that the Government should consider these proposals with an open mind. I assure him that there will be no criticism of the Secretary of State or of the Government if the Government do change course on this, even thought it has been submitted to the House on a major vote of importance and carried by the House.
The Secretary of State—I understand why he cannot be here today—must have returned from the Glasgow visit pretty shattered by his experience. But however that may be, I take him at his word, what he is reported as saying about being willing to think again and to consider alternatives.
I have one other suggestion. If I refer to the Prime Minister, despite our little misunderstanding last night, which I think was totally sincere and genuine—he clearly felt that he was not paired and I was clearly informed that I was: indeed, I was here in the House when many of the Divisions took place; but let us sweep all these little accidents of parliamentary activity on one side—I do not suggest that he should now leave everything and go up to the Clyde to see

things for himself. He, like all other hon. Members, is entitled to a holiday. That is what this Motion is about. If it is carried, we shall perhaps get one.
The Leader of the House is entitled to a holiday as well: I think he has earned it, despite occasional vagaries, mainly in defending colleagues he knew to be indefensible. Of course the Prime Minister has earned it and I hope that he will have a happy holiday and a successful one. So in referring to him in this context, I am not suggesting any immediate action on his part.
But the Prime Minister is going to visit Scotland, I think early next month, to make public speeches—about the Common Market or whatever it may be. When he is there, I would suggest that he should make it his business to see all those who can help him in taking the right decision, whatever that may be, on Upper Clyde—management, unions, shop stewards, civic heads, representing all parties in Glasgow and Clydebank. I hope that he will listen to them and then form his own view of what the right policy should be.
My main reason for intervening today is to suggest that, if he does that, or if the Secretary of State will go back and listen to the evidence more carefully than he could do in his rather rushed and difficult visit on Tuesday, an assurance should be given to the House that no action will be taken in this matter in furtherance of the closure programme announced in the White Paper and approved by the House on Monday until the Prime Minister and others have seen the problem on the ground.
I was in no doubt last week that this was the wrong decision. I am much more convinced now, because when one sees it on the ground and gets the facts and the statistics and the financial position, the arguments are much strengthened. One sees these proposals in the three dimensions of reality, rather than the two dimensions of a Cabinet document.
If the Prime Minister himself will go and look at these problems and talk to these people with a genuine open mind, as I am sure he will, next month, he will get a very different impression from that which he may have got from reading—this is perhaps inevitable in Cabinet Government—rather hurriedly, against other


pressures, documents which have been produced in the recesses of Whitehall. They bear only a partial relationship to the real facts to be found on the ground, or, in this case, by the riverside.
I do not have to say that my hon. Friends, and equally Scottish hon. Gentlemen opposite, appreciate that this problem is occurring against a background of almost daily redundancies. There are now probably the worst prospects for school-leavers, not just on Clydeside but throughout the country, as this morning's Question Time made clear, since the war.
Both yesterday and today I was visited by representatives of former employees of a Government factory which the Labour Government converted to a private enterprise factory. Now, after vast expediture of taxpayers' money, it is being closed down and the work transferred to the Home Counties. This is a serious case and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) who raised this matter at Question Time, has every right to be concerned about it.
I ask for an assurance that, despite Monday's debate and the vote which took place, no action will be taken until at any rate the Prime Minister has had a chance to consider what he can do, so that on his visit in September he will be able to look at the matter again with an open mind.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I, too, rise to oppose the Motion and if I do so on a subject which is different from those which have been discussed so far, I assure the House that I do not underrate their importance. Indeed, there cannot be an hon. Member who is not filled with anxiety and foreboding about the Irish question.
However, another situation has arisen which is of great importance both to this country and to the world community and is also of the utmost gravity. In my view it would be utterly wrong for this House to go into the long recess without assurances concerning what the international community and Her Majesty's Government are doing about the tragic situation in Bengal and the even more terrifying prospects that lie ahead.
There now seems little doubt that, in addition to the present miseries of the Bengali people, a major famine will strike by the autumn and possibly before we

return from the Summer Recess. Anxiety about the scale and speed of relief has been repeatedly expressed by hon. Members on both sides, it has found expression in the Press and it is acutely felt throughout the country.
This feeling was summed up by U Thant when he told the United Nations Economic and Social Council at its meeting last month that recent disasters had revealed a growing sense of frustration on the part of people who were anxious to help but who were only too conscious that the response is falling far short of the needs.
By all means let us give credit where it is due. Our own Government have taken a lead in calling for better coordination of international relief in times of disaster. They have made specific proposals.
U Thant has proposed the setting up of a permanent organisation within the United Nations system to cope with disasters and to co-ordinate the efforts of voluntary agencies and Governments. I understand that his proposal is likely to be endorsed by the General Assembly in October, and effective machinery should be established by the end of the year. This, too, is excellent.
What will happen in the meantime, however, in the period before this House reassembles? As we debate this Motion the refugee situation in India, a friendly Commonwealth country closely linked to Britain over a long period, has reached terrible proportions. There are now about 7 millon refugees from East Pakistan over the Indian border. It is a conservative estimate to say that about 30,000 to 40,000 people are still crossing over daily. If the present trend continues while the House is in recess, it is not unlikely that the number of refugees will reach 10 million by the time we return.
As are many other hon. Members, I am in close touch with some of the international voluntary agencies. Oxfam field workers have reported that thousands of children are dying of malnutrition in the refugee camps. Of what use was it, one might ask in despair, to save the lives of these children from death by cholera if they are to be condemned to die by starvation? Then, there is the situation in East Pakistan itself, where the tragic happenings of the past year have dislocated normal life,


disrupted communications, ruined agriculture and left over 70 million human beings on the very edge of catastrophe.
I am aware, of course, that the United Nations has taken certain actions to determine the relief needs of East Pakistan, that U Thant made a powerful appeal for international humanitarian assistance and that a communications link between him, his representative on the spot in Dacca, and the voluntary agencies in Geneva has been established. I am aware also that arrangements are being made by the Food and Agriculture Organisation to ship food supplies, some of which may now be arriving, and that a number of Governments, including our own, have offered cash or its equivalent in food, equipment, medical aid, and transport.
Will this be in time? Will it be enough? I ask these questions for four reasons. First, there is mounting evidence that Pakistan and India are drifting towards open conflict—a situation which would ruin both countries and add immeasurably to the misery of the inhabitants of Bengal. Secondly, it is utterly unrealistic to expect that the refugees will return to East Pakistan unless there is a political settlement that restores their confidence. Yet, if they stay in India, that country, through no fault of its own, will have to shoulder a burden which is manifestly too vast for it to carry. Thirdly, in any event, unless there is a political settlement which produces a framework of order in East Pakistan, it will be difficult if not impossible to distribute international aid to the people there if a famine situation arises.
Fourthly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that so far only 90 million dollars of financial aid has been made available to India to help cope with the refugee problem out of an estimated need of 400,000,000 dollars. Thus, only about one-quarter of what is required seems to far to have been pledged. In the case of food supplies, 160,000 tons of rice is available to meet an estimated need of 500,000 tons.
Against this background, I submit that we should not accept the Motion unless and until the Government are able to give us at least two assurances. The first is that they are doing all they can behind the

scenes to persuade the friends of India and Pakistan in Washington, in Moscow, and perhaps even in Peking, to use their influence to get a dialogue going between the Government of Pakistan and some representative body in East Pakistan. I say this because we are in grave danger of viewing the situation as being a purely India-Pakistan confrontation, a sort of modern edition of the old Hindu-Moslem conflict, whereas we are dealing with a civil war inside Pakistan. Indeed, the key to the whole situation lies in the creation of conditions in East Pakistan which will enable the refugees to go back to their own homes. It also seems to me that the friends of India and Pakistan—two of the most important populous countries in the world—should prevail upon the two governments to enter into some sort of discussion over these matters.
The second assurance which I seek from my right hon. Friend concerns the fact that refugees are dying now in their thousands and many more will die in the weeks ahead. Are the Government satisfied that the international contingency planning is adequate to cope both with the present situation and with the onset of a fresh disaster in Bengal should that overtake us before the autumn? I ask for that assurance because all the evidence which we have at the moment indicates that the contingency planning so far is inadequate and that we are moving remorselessly towards a disaster of the first magnitude.
If the Government are not satisfied on that point we are surely entitled to know what independent initiatives they themselves are taking. There is little time left, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to give us assurance that the Government not merely care about this situation but are continuing to take the initiative and provide the leadership it requires.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Reg. Prentice: I begin by putting to the Leader of the House a procedural point, which I shall not develop because of the time. The fact that we are falling over one another in an effort to try to raise large and complex matters in the short time remaining to us shows that the House really needs a fresh kind of procedure, a sort of end-of-term debate, perhaps lasting a few


days, before the Summer Recess during which right hon. and hon. Members may question Ministers on matters of continuing anxiety in the period of recess ahead. I shall not enlarge on that now, but I think that the point is well illustrated by our proceedings today.
I hope that what I say will complement many of the observations of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). In my view, we have not sufficiently debated the situation in Bengal. We ought to have had, before the recess, a full-scale debate on the subject, and, certainly, I do not consider that we should pass the Motion without asking certain questions of the Government and receiving certain assurances about the weeks ahead.
A few weeks ago, I was a member of a parliamentary mission, with three other hon. Members, which had, I suppose, the unique opportunity of visiting West Pakistan, East Bengal and India and seeing this appalling tragedy from each of those angles. Plainly, it is one of the greatest human tragedies of this century. The point which I emphasise is that everything in this situation seems to show that in the coming weeks and months it will become worse.
The guerrilla activity in East Bengal is being intensified, as one would expect from the basic political facts of the situation. There are many reports in the Press in the past few days—the report from Clare Hollingworth in today's Daily Telegraph is an example—showing the growing activity and the growing success of the guerrillas, who can train in border areas, who are drawing their recruits from among the refugees, and who have the bulk of the population on their side. I suggest to the House that they will win in the end. The only question is how many deaths and how much suffering will take place before that happens.
Meanwhile, it seems to be, as a corollary of that, the oppressive measures of the West Pakistan Army will become worse in the period ahead. It is an army outnumbered by about 1,000 to one, in a hostile territory, with lines of communication running 3,000 miles round the South of India, unable to maintain itself and unable to survive, let alone subdue the country, without an escalating policy of terror.
The total of refugees, now over 7 million, is growing all the time. Many thousands are coming across every day. In many ways, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East reminded us, their condition is becoming more and more desperate. Yesterday there was a report from U.N.I.C.E.F. suggesting that in the coming weeks 300,000 children were in imminent danger of death from malnutrition and associated causes. The sheer size and scale of this is impossible to envisage simply by talking of facts and figures. Having seen a tiny fraction of it at first hand I can say that I have never had such a terrible experience and I hope never again to have anything comparable. At the same time, there is an ever-growing burden upon India. Most of us who have visited the camps and hospitals in India find it difficult to express too highly our praise for the local officials, doctors and others who are working round the clock to keep these people alive.
They are doing a job on behalf of the rest of the human race which is beyond praise but they are doing it at enormous costs. Over 5 million of these refugees are in West Bengal, one of the poorest and most over-crowded parts of the world. The whole area is packed with people, not merely in the camps but in the villages. There are refugees living in the schools so that the children cannot go to school, there are refugees in the offices so that normal office activities cannot continue. Local officials must overcome this problem so that local activity can go ahead. There is a price being paid in India way above the cost of keeping these people alive, a price impossible to compute and one which may increase in the period ahead when all kinds of political trouble, racial and religious tension may arise.
Superimposed on all of this is the threat to peace, the fact that this situation could deteriorate into war between the two countries. The way in which I relate this to the Adjournment Motion is that many people in the sub-continent are looking to Britain for a clearer lead. I said to many people that they must not expect too much of us, that they must recognise that no outside country could solve this problem. Nevertheless, the world has to do more about it and we ought to be playing a more positive rôle than we are. I seek assurances from the Lord President. First I should like to ask


him about the kind of political work going on so that we do what we can to help bring about a peaceful political situation acceptable to the people of East Bengal.
I ask for assurances under four headings. First of all, many of us want from the Government an assurance that they do not contemplate any change in their announced policy of not making any fresh pledges of economic aid to West Pakistan with effect from the beginning of the Pakistan financial year which was 1st July. In 99 cases out of 100 I would be the first to resist the suggestion that the flow of economic aid should be turned on and off for reasons of political pressure. I say that this is the 100th case. In talking of economic aid I am not talking about relief either in East Pakistan or in India.
The main aid programme for West Pakistan is running down because of the decision of the aid consortium of which we are a member. I believe that is absolutely right, and I seek an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no reversal of the policy until there is a peaceful political solution, until there are as a result conditions in which development can take place in East Bengal, whether it is still part of Pakistan or an independent country. This is certainly not the case at present.
Many of us hope that the British Government are putting all the pressure they can upon the United States Government to cease sending arms to the Pakistan régime. It is an extraordinary situation which would have an element of comedy in it if it were not so tragic that the armies of Yahya Khan are using weapons and equipment which come, in the main, from China and the United States. A message should go out from this House in support of the Senators and Congressmen in Washington who have asked for a change in American policy.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will try to seek, with other countries, ways of getting this matter raised in the United Nations in the hope that some kind of world strategy will emerge. I know that this is difficult. It is difficult for the United Nations to operate in a situation when neither of the two countries immediately concerned wants the matter to be raised in the United Nations. But this

is a threat to peace which could have the most appalling consequences for mankind. It is extraordinary that the United Nations has not been able to discuss the matter and to try to find a solution.
Fourthly, I refer to what the Foreign Secretary referred to on Monday at Question Time as the quiet talks he is having behind the scenes. I ask that these be continued, particularly in relation to the situation of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I hope that we shall make inquiries about his safety, which is in grave doubt. I hope that we shall urge his release and will continue to impress on the Government of West Pakistan that the only way in which this problem can be solved is to make an arrangement which is acceptable to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League, which won an overwhelming victory in the elections a few months ago.
I turn to the relief situation, which I put under two headings. First, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East talked about the developing food crisis in East Bengal, which seems to me to have two elements in it. One is that the aman crop, the main rice crop of the year which is due to be harvested in the next month or two, clearly will be under par because of the disruption of the sowing and transplanting of the crop. Therefore, there will be an overall grain shortage. Secondly, the transport crisis, which will get worse because of guerrilla activity, will disrupt supplies.
The British Government and others have pledged large sums of money for a relief operation based on the condition that relief is fairly and equitably distributed and not simply used by the Army as a weapon with which it can reward docile villages and punish fractious villages. Observers must be present in sufficient numbers to ensure that that is done fairly and properly. Mr. El-Tawil is in Dacca as the representative of the United Nations trying to negotiate the arrangements. In view of all the criticism of the United Nations, is is worth putting on record that the United Nations is in the field in advance of the crisis, trying to make plans with local people for dealing with it. This deserves every encouragement from us. Has the Leader of the House anything to add to what we know? Can he give any assurances about how the Government will deal in the recess with this developing situation?
Finally, I wish to comment on the enormous problem of relief for India. Can the Leader of the House add to the reply given to me on Monday by the Minister for Overseas Development which was in written form because the Question was not reached orally. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we had offered £2 million to the High Commissioner for Refugees and £5 million bilaterally to India. He said that of the £5 million
£2·8 million of this offer is committed to the purchase and shipment of rice and shelter materials, and £1·75 million is set aside for an emergency airlift of rice and for transport vehicles Some of the promised funds are therefore still available ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 208.]
Not much of the promised funds is still available. The figures which I have given amount to over £4½ million. Therefore, the greater part of the £5 million is already committed to specific programmes. Clearly Britain and every other country should be making new pledges to India.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Indians have calculated that the cost of keeping refugees alive for six months from the end of March to the end of September is about 400 million dollars. They made that calculation when there were fewer refugees than there are now, and, therefore, the up-to-date figure is probably greater than that. I think the hon. Gentleman did not quote the total figure of pledges; he gave the figure pledged by the United Nations; but if one adds together all the pledges, of the United Nations, of the tremendous efforts of private organisations in this country and in other countries, as well as of the efforts of Governments, the figure I get, which is now a week or two old and may be a little out of date, is that the total global pledge is about 177 million dollars. That is still less than half India's calculation of what is needed for a six months' operation. And this is not a six months' operation. This is going on, so far as one at present can see, for much longer.
Therefore there seems urgent need for fresh pledges to be made, and, I repeat, not just by Britain but from all over the world. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman if this is contemplated, and, if not, that he will consult his colleagues

and with a sense of urgency, for India needs help in this situation, firstly, for the obvious humanitarian reasons, and secondly, for this reason, that voices are raised in India in favour of a military solution, and one reason why those voices are being raised is that without aid the burden upon the Indian economy will become intolerable and become unmanageable. I think it wrong, but it can be argued, in the circumstances, that a military solution would be the right one for India, and if the world wants to prevent war there the world has to shoulder a larger share of the burden, and in these circumstances I think the British Government should now be prepared to assist further. I make no criticism of what has been pledged in relation to its proportion of the gross domestic product, but they were pledges for a limited duration, and this situation requires aid in circumstances of longer duration, because this is a unique disaster and one to which the world must respond adequately.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am particularly glad that this exceptionally crucial subject should have been brought up at this time by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) who has such expertise in these matters. I, too, share his deep concern, and I seek some assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before we rise this afternoon.
The magnitude of the humanitarian problem has probably only to be seen to be fully comprehended, and in so far as that is so I shall not particularly enlarge upon it. All I would say is that so far this country has shouldered a bigger share of the burden of humanitarian relief than any other, and our Government deserves credit for that, but I do not believe that we can be anywhere near satisfied yet, particularly when the problem is one of long-term food shortage or famine. The problem has been likened to the very serious famine which there was in 1942 in part of Bengal which was subsequently partitioned and I support the concern which was expressed by my hon. Friend on that matter. I would, just briefly, go further, because this is a matter which, as so many hon. and right hon. Members


have emphasised, could affect world peace.
In the post-imperial era I am not fully convinced, if the House is to act responsibly and wisely to calm passions and to prevent age-old animosities being exacerbated to the point of war, that it befits the House to pronounce upon the internal affairs of independent countries, particularly Commonwealth countries with which we are friendly. I believe that our best interest is served by being truly objective, because our historic, unique position in Southern Asia fits us perhaps better than any other Power for mediation in this area.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in saying that this was perhaps the greatest human tragedy in this century went further and commented upon the military situation in East Pakistan. While I understand the bearing this has on the humanitarian situation, I ask him and his hon. Friends to be exceptionally careful. There have been Motions on the Order Paper of this House which make it no easier for us to act as conciliator and mediator, which is what we hope this country may do. One such Motion signed by 211 right hon. and hon. Members opposite concerning the situation in East Pakistan not only appeared on the Order Paper but was spread across whole pages of newspapers in the form of an advertisement.
I ask the House to remember that these age-old animosities are not confined to the sub-continent; they are also not without ramification within these Islands. It ill becomes us to use our privileged position in this House to inflame passions and to set people marching, with ultimate results that can lead to violence, as was shown at the culmination of a demonstration in London last weekend. I urge the House to be exceedingly careful in that regard.
I always listen with special attentive-ness to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, because I know his great expertise and the high regard in which he is held in the House. None the less, when, in a situation of such extremity, he calls for the cessation of aid to a nation—and I speak of a nation and not of a secessionist movement that might lead to anything else—which is faced with

virtually total dislocation of its economy, with all the serious implications that this must have for millions of people, many of whom live in a destitution unknown and uncomprehended by hon. Members, he should remember that it is a serious matter to stop aid, whatever the actions of that country's Government. This may have appalling effects upon the population of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the United Nations. I am glad that the Government of Pakistan have accepted the presence of 60 observers from the United Nations to facilitate the movement of refugees back from India to Pakistan. It would be much preferable if the Indian Government would accept, if only as a token, observers on her soil in West Bengal. If this were the case, I feel that some of the understandably predominant fears about infiltration from India into Pakistan by hostile elements could be assuaged. Those are not just fears. In many cases they are substantiated by evidence on the spot. This has gravely exacerbated the problems and I should like my right hon. Friend to comment on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League, who is now in custody in East Pakistan. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Early Day Motion on this matter. I do not believe that this House or the country would welcome it if this House, if the Lok Sabha, had tabled a resolution suggesting that certain Members who were themselves in custody—let us say, the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—should be released. We should be exceedingly careful in these matters because they may have the reverse effect to what right hon. and hon. Members opposite desire. It is an extremely delicate situation and is escalating fast.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give assurances on this matter. It is very like 1965 when there were the incidents on the border between Pakistan and India at Dhagram. That military incident precipitated the escalation towards conflict in the West. The situation is not a dissimilar pattern from that which might emerge at present. There has been too much provocative material in the Press which can only do harm.
I ask the House to pour oil on these troubled waters and I ask the Press in its turn to do the same because much of this material can do incalculable damage. I should like to quote a short extract from one or two pieces of Press comment which have done so much damage. Mr. Murray Sayle in last week's Sunday Times refers to the Pakistan special forces as "an American réchauffée of John Wayne in Curry Sauce". He goes on to allege that they were responsible for beginning the India-Pakistan conflict. That sort of statement is simplistic, false and utterly harmful. He goes on to attack the United States Special Forces and Pakistan's alignment with the Western bloc. That sort of incitement arouses ill feeling and can do only harm.
I ask my right hon. Friend to say with what degree the Government regard this matter. I want to know whether they would be prepared if necessary to recall the House if matters came to a head in the course of the summer.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I submit that this House should not adjourn until it has had a debate or definite statement from the Home Secretary on a subject which for some time has stuck out like a sore toe, namely, the salaries of probation officers.
The probation service has been taken for granted by the public as a whole, yet too great praise cannot be given to probation officers' experiences, knowledge, professional competence, fairness and objectivity as well as the great and increasing load of work they bear all the time. Recognition should be given to the fact that they form an essential part of the court's system. We often talk with pride about the quality of British justice, and the probation service contributes in no small way to the high regard in which our courts are held. In my view the standards that we have set will not be maintained or improved unless we can continue to attract to the service men and women of intelligence and integrity in competition with other developing social services.
That is not happening. Although the Government have said that the after-care service and the probation service are to

be expanded, anyone looking at the figures will find that the losses to the probation service in 1968 were 181, that in 1969 they were 217, and that in 1970 they were 250. Far from expanding, the service cannot even meet its present commitments.
The facts are that case loads have risen nationally by 20 per cent. over the five-year period ending December, 1968, and that, over the two years ending December, 1970, there has been a further rise in case loads of 9·5 per cent. and court inquiries of all kinds have risen by a total of 44 per cent. Working time spent on social inquiry reports varies between six and 15 hours. Divorce work is generally much longer.
In Hertfordshire, where my constituency is, the use of volunteers has increased considerably. Their numbers have nearly doubled in the last two years. But they require supervision. Often they make extra demands on officers' time. In addition, probation orders, supervision orders and statutory after care are all increasing, some more noticeably than others.
Despite the ever-increasing load which we place on the shoulders of probation officers, the starting basic salary for the probation service is £975, whereas the starting salary in our social welfare departments is about £1,515. Probation service salaries are fixed largely on a national scale, while the salaries of welfare officers are negotiated locally.
If one compares the basic scales, the probation service salaries are so low that the result to be expected, which is happening, is a drift to other welfare departments and social welfare agencies from the probation service and the strong probability of the probation service being hit by resignations.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that the functions of the probation service are expected to expand to deal with more and more young offenders and to alleviate the serious overcrowding in our prisons. We must do something about this in order to reverse the losses of personnel to other services, to raise the standard of entrants and thereby to improve the service's strength and effectiveness. I ask the Minister to make a statement very soon. This House should not adjourn until that statement is made


or until we have had an opportunity to discuss this very serious question which affects us and will affect us even more in the years to come.
There is one other point on which I do not intend to dwell but which I must mention. I believe that this House should not adjourn until we have had either a debate or a reassuring statement from the Minister concerned about the Government's rather doubtful practice, to put it at its very lowest, of using public money for propaganda purposes in their advocacy of entry into the Common Market, but I expect that others of my hon. Friends will deal with this subject during this debate.

4.4 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I wish to intervene for only three or four minutes and, if I may, I shall return to the subject of East Bengal, beginning with a reference to the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). I trust that the Lord President will regard the views which have been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) as much more representing the views of this House in general than do the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. Beyond making that comment, I shall not go into what he said in detail.
The most dangerous thing of all—I am quite certain that the Foreign Secretary and the Government in general will wish to avoid doing this—would be to regard the present tragedy of the refugees in India and within East Bengal as in any way involving some kind of conflict between India and Pakistan. Indeed, I recognise that one of India's great difficulties in this matter is her reluctance to have United Nations involvement because she fears that this is how such involvement might be interpreted.
I endorse everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, but I wish to add one other point. It represents, so to speak, a fifth point on which the House should have some reasssurance from the Lord President. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in addition to the relief to India and to the U Thant Fund for

the refugees, the Government have made money available for the voluntary agencies in Britain to exercise their rôle in helping in any way that they can in this tragic situation. Indeed, confronted by all the international problems of this great crisis, we are glad that our own voluntary organisations are doing such a magnificent job in India.
But I understand that the £250,000 which was made available by the Government some months ago has now been spent. I also understand that there is a possibility that some of our voluntary agencies may no longer be able to carry out their work unless further funds are made available by the Government at once. It may be that this is due to some process of bureaucratic delay which is taking place in the Commonwealth and Foreign Office. It may be—indeed, I am sure that this is so—that there is no intention on the part of the Government to deprive the voluntary agencies of any funds which will enable them to make their maximum contribution in West Bengal.
I ask the Lord President to assure the House before we rise today that, in addition to the points mentioned by my right hon. Friend, he will urgently look into the question and will ensure that the Government's intention, that the voluntary agencies should be able to make the maximum possible contribution within the limits of their manpower resources and of the situation in India, is not frustrated by any delay in providing more financial assistance. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to give that assurance and that, having looked into the matter—I appreciate that he cannot look into it today—he will want to make public the fact that the Government will not in any way restrain the amount of financial assistance which will enable a good job to be done.
I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate my hon. Friends will make it clear that there is a united view in this House about the urgency of dealing with the situation and about the desire of hon. Members that Britain should play her maximum rôle in maintaining the peace and helping the people who are suffering from the tragedy which has resulted in India and West Bengal.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate. Strange as it may seem to some hon. Members, whilst I often take part at Question time, I do not often take part in debates.
I gave notice some days ago that I hoped to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and I took the opportunity of informing the Leader of the House that there were a number of points I wished to raise. Of necessity, I must be brief. But I wish to raise the matter mentioned in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) about the scandal and, indeed, the racket which is going on at the behest and on the initiative of the Government regarding their E.E.C. policy in their use of taxpayers' money, without the approval of the House, to propagate party political propaganda.
Not only are we faced with the use of State funds and taxpayers' money to propagate Tory propaganda, but the Government are deliberately concealing from the House facts and figures which are available to them. They are concealing information which should be made available, and they are spending large sums of money in sending out false information to the country.
We have been told by the Prime Minister that we shall not go into the Common Market unless the overwhelming majority of people in the country are in favour of doing so, but he has dodged giving them the opportunity of expressing their views. I want to give the House some facts and figures that are available on this issue, and then to touch on a constitutional matter which is related to this whole question.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckingham, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked a very interesting Question, which has not been taken up by the Press. In a Written Question on 26th July, at column 32, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked the Leader of the House how many of these propaganda sheets had been issued to the major political parties, and what the cost was, A fantastic and astounding reply was given by the Leader of the House. He said that 837,910 copies of the so-called Factsheets were sent to the Conservative Party at a cost

of £25,137. This has been at a time when the Government are cutting down on school meals, school milk and the social services. They cannot find money for essential purposes, but here we see them issuing copies of propaganda leaflets to the Conservative Party, which does not have the support of the country or of the House on this issue. Neither the White Paper nor the Factsheets have been agreed to or passed by this House, and yet this is happening.
In case anybody wants to consider how fair and democratic the Government are, let me make it clear that although they have sent nearly one million copies of this document to the Tory Party, they have sent only 5,000 to the Labour Party, at a cost of £152, while the Liberals—who are never here—have received about 3,000 copies, at a cost of £95. There have been a number of Motions calling the attention of the House to the need for justice not only to be done, but to be seen to be done. To give 800,000 copies to the Tory Party, as a cost of £25,000, but only 3,000 copies, at a cost of £95, to the Liberal Party does not seem to be in accordance with our normal democratic procedure.
But worse than that is the Government's attempt to bamboozle the public by using the services of the Post Office. We are told that about £1 million is being spent on this effort. This is a dangerous precedent, because the Leader of the House must be forewarned that when the Labour Party gets back into office, as it will at the next General Election, it will be able to prepare a lot of pro-nationalisation literature and have it circulated by the Post Office.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—who sometimes participates in debates in the House!—saying only-yesterday that when we got back to power we would introduce legislation to do away with the Industrial Relations Act. I hope that our Front Bench will go one step further, and not only do away with that Measure but introduce a White Paper—which will not be debated in the House—and then have Factsheets drawn up and issued to the Post Office with the request that they be circulated at taxpayer's expense. I hope that all documents relating to Labour Party policies and programmes will be circulated in that way


as soon as they are formulated. The precedent has been set. I hope that our party will do just that.
There has been another waste of money. I asked a Question of the appropriate Minister about a film that was made to publicise these so-called Factsheets. That film cost £2,500 and was to be shown on television. Having made the firm, the Government negotiated with the I.T.A. and were told that the I.T.A. could not show the firm because it was a propaganda film, and that it was forbidden to show it under the terms of the Act. I would have thought that before the Government spent £2,500 making a film they would have ascertained whether it could be shown on television, as they intended.
There has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to conceal facts, figures and information that is available. I must not say that they have given lying replies, because that would not be parliamentary language, but they have given replies knowing that they represented no attempt to answer the questions, although the information to answer them was readily available.
Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
to what extent he estimates, on Great Britain's entry into the Economic Community—the price rises which will result therefrom will affect the £2 million to £3 million per annum of goods purchased by residents of the Six who come to Great Britain to purchase retail goods from British shops due to their cheapness in comparison with the cost of such items in the countries of the Six."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 313.]
That was a simple Question. I had got the facts from the Department. There was no attempt to answer the Question. The answer was "No", which was not an answer, although an answer could easily have been given. The Government do not want to give the true facts to the people, even with the £1 million or thereabouts that they are spending on propaganda.
I know that in the House it is customary to say that if The Times says something it must be right. I have no time to go into the matter in detail, but if the Leader of the House will refer to The Times of 2nd August he will see an article under the signature of David Wood, headed
Cabinet Plans for Entry to the Market

The following day the Financial Times carried a similar article to the effect that the Government had already agreed and had plans already in being to guillotine all the procedural points with regard to our entry into the Common Market.
This is a very serious matter. Whatever may be our views for or against the Common Market—and I have declared from the start that I am very much against it—we all agree that it is a great constitutional issue. If we go in it will vitally affect Members of Parliament for the rest of their days, and for the rest of the time that Parliament is in existence. We know that when constitutional matters are raised they are taken on the Floor of the House. Last week we discussed the Industrial Relations Bill on the Floor of the House.
This is a case of inspired leaks, handouts, angling, trying it on, detailed lobby information from the Government. Matters will be so arranged that what is necessary will be introduced on Second Reading in the House and then the orders will go to a Select Committee——

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the hon. Gentleman allow some other hon. Members to speak in this debate if I categorically state that I have no knowledge of these plans? Presumably I would have knowledge if they existed, but I totally repudiate any suggestion of any plans. If I do that, perhaps he will allow other hon. Members to get into the debate.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have had many categorical denials from the Government that they do not intend to do this, that or the other—and then I find that it happens.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be fair to me; I think not deliberately, he is questioning my word. I am saying that there are no plans. I can make the categorical assurance that at this stage there are no such plans as those to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. If that is the case, surely he will allow others to come into the debate, because I am honestly telling him the truth.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman said that there are no plans at the moment. I accept that. I have no time to go through the articles, but they give the details. I said that this is kite-flying——

Mr. Whitelaw: In order to try to help the progress of the debate, if I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I have no knowledge of the matters which I read in the newspaper—it is fair and reasonable to suggest that if they were true, they would be in my mind if they are in anyone's, and they are not in my mind—does that help him?

Mr. Lewis: Up to a point, yes. I am obliged. Would the right hon. Gentleman go one step further and give a definite assurance that the Government will make no attempt to restrict, by means of the guillotine or anything else, the usual custom of hon. Members having the same rights to discuss matters pertaining to entry of the E.E.C. as they have in other respects? If he can, I will sit down immediately.
But there are some 2,500 orders and directives which have been passed by the Council of Ministers and which this House, according to the Chancellor of the Duchy, would have to agree in toto. We cannot amend or reject. If he can assure me that we shall be able to do so, that will be contrary to the assurance of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who said in answer to a Question that we cannot even take any action which might be an attempt to frustrate the will of the Council of Ministers.
If he can assure me that hon. Members will have as much time for debate as they like, I shall be happy to accept that assurance. He will find it hard to do that because he would have to get the Chancellor of the Duchy to alter his answer, which he would find difficult to do because if we enter the E.E.C. we shall be committed to the Rome Treaty, which will mean our being bound automatically to implement that Treaty and all the directives contained in it. That is why I say that we shall be faced with a fait accompli.
On the eve of the General Election the present Prime Minister gave his solemn pledge that the people of Britain would have an opportunity to express their will about our entering the Common Market. Did he mean what he said? If so, and as he has rejected the idea of a referendum, he should accept the Official Opposition's suggestion and call a General Election.
Let the Government beware of the fact—and it is a fact—that the T.U.C., which represents the majority of industrial workers, and the Labour Party, which represents 50 per cent. of the electorate, are against our entry into the E.E.C. on the present terms. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampon, South-West (Mr. Powell), but he is right to say that if the Government intend to carry our entry through this House, there must be agreement between the two major parties, because the Liberals do not count.
If I am given that assurance, I will go away on my holidays happy in the knowledge that in the long days and nights to come when we may have to discuss the Treaty of Rome and its implications, we shall have an opportunity not only to debate but to alter and reject any of the directives in that Treaty that should not apply to this country.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it will be reasonable for me to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to catch my eye shortly after 4.45 p.m. I hope that hon. Members who catch my eye between now and then will bear that in mind and will, therefore, be brief. Mr. Stonehouse.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am sure that he House will forgive me if I refer again to the subject of Bengal. I sought to raise this matter and to refer to the crime of genocide and the threat to peace when we debated the Consolidated Fund Bill, but the debate closed before my subject was reached.
I am glad that the matter has been raised today, because it would be intolerable if we were to go away for the long recess without referring to the worsening situation in Bengal and considering what we in Britain can do about it.
I entirely disagree with hon. Members who say that this is an internal affair for Pakistan and that we in Britain, and particularly we in this House, should take no interest in it. It is not an internal affair. The world community is concerned about the crime of genocide, the worst crime the world has known since


the days of Hitler. We recall how concerned we were about Hitler's extermination of the Jews. What is going on in East Bengal today is every bit as evil, in kind and degree as that. We must raise protest against that.
The world community is concerned about evacuees. Seven million of them have had to flee for their lives and others are still fleeing—fleeing in a way which constitutes an invasion of India by Pakistan, because these people are being forced out and are proving to be an immense problem to India and an attempt to undermine the Indian economy by the Pakistan military rulers.
Furthermore, the world community is concerned about the threat of mass famine. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to this matter. We recognise his humanitarian concern. What he said is true. Tens of millions of people in East Bengal face real danger of starvation within the next few months. If this is not a problem for the world community, I do not know what is. It is not an internal matter any more. Furthermore, there is this threat of outbreak of widespread war between India and Pakistan, which could bring in other Powers, in particular China, and could trigger off a major war in that part of the world. It is therefore not an internal affair and those who suggest that it is are completely misjudging the situation.
Much reference has been made to the effects of this disaster—the situation of the refugees, the fact that hundreds of thousands are going to die in the next few weeks and that there will be starvation. If I had had time, I should like to have referred to these effects. I shall, instead, refer to the causes. The causes are clearly understood, on both sides of the House, to be the military repression by the Pakistan Army of the democratic will of the people of East Bengal as expressed in the elections last December.
I do not accept the stories that there were atrocities against minorities before 25th March and that this was why the Army had to strike.

Mr. Wilkinson: Mr. Wilkinson rose——

Mr. Stonehouse: There may have been examples of unrest, but it is not the case that the Awami League or anyone else in

political leadership was inciting the communal riots which took place in one or two towns. What the Awami League and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in particular did was to try to prevent any communal unrest.
The Pakistan Army since 25th March has been engaged in one of the most brutal repressions of a population the world has ever see. I do not want to detain the House with too many quotations. I gave some when we debated the matter on 9th June. There was then a certain note of disagreement among some hon. Members opposite. Within a few days, The Sunday Times, in a very long report, had confirmed what I said—namely, that there was genocide in East Bengal. I want to read two extracts from Newsweek to confirm what has been going on and what is going on now. The first is:
It seemed a routine enough request. Assembling the young men of the village of Haluaghat in East Pakistan, a Pakistani Army major informed them that his wounded soldiers urgently needed blood. Would they be donors? The young men lay down on makeshift cots, needles were inserted in their veins—and then slowly the blood was drained from their bodies until they died.
The Second is:
Govinda Chandramandl forgets who told him first, but when he heard that an amnesty had been pledged to all refugees, he immediately set off on the long walk home. With his two teenage daughters by his side, Chandramandl trudged through monsoon-drenched swamplands and passed burned-out villages. When he neared his scrap of land, soldiers stopped him. As he watch in helpless anguish, his daughters were raped—again and again and again.
These are just two incidents from a whole welter of stories that continue to come out of that troubled country. These incidents are not incidents brought about as a result of uncontrolled communal violence. They are perpetrated by the Pakistan army. I suggest in all seriousness that, when events reach this point of disaster, and it is the calculated policy of a Government, through their army, to engage in such repression, it is necessary for the world community to act to bring it to an end, as the world community should have acted to bring Hitler's activities to an end before the last war broke out.
The United Nations should take heed, should activiate the Genocide Convention,


and, if necessary use United Nations forces, with the agreement of the big Powers—obviously, they would have to agree—to take in some armed forces to bring this disaster to an early end. I suggest that that be done, and I only wish that the House of Commons had had more time to debate the subject.
If we are to avoid a continuing disaster, it is necessary for us to turn our attention to a particular aspect of the problem, namely, the position of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The House has already taken notice of a Motion on this matter, now signed by over 250 right hon. Members. It has had remarkable support from both sides. Why does the House of Commons take an interest in this man's plight?—because it recognises that, if there is to be a political agreement, it can be only with the democratically elected leaders in East Pakistan and with Sheikh Mujib, in particular. He is the key to this situation.
The sooner Yahya Khan and the others realise this, the sooner will it be possible to reach some sort of agreement on the position in East Bengal. I have no doubt what that agreement will be; it will be the emergence of the independent State of Bangla Desh, because that, obviously, will reflect the interests of the population there.
However, I do not want, and I am sure that the House does not want, to dictate to the people of East Bengal what the political solution should be. All I am saying is that, if this world problem is to be brought to an end and lives are to be saved in the refugee camps and in East Bengal itself, it is essential that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should be released. It is not an internal problem. It is necessary for the world community, and for our Government in particular, to bring all possible pressure on Yahya Khan to find a way out of the terrible situation he has allowed himself to get into and to allow Sheikh Mujib to be released and negotiations to proceed to put an end to this disaster.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I, also, consider that it would be wrong for us to adjourn without a meaningful statement from the Government on the two dangers of starvation and war in

East Pakistan. I agree strongly with the speeches made this afternoon, particularly those of my right hon. Friends the Members for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
The misery is occurring thousands of miles away, and to people with coloured skins, but it is just as great a misery as if it were nearer home and occurring to people of white skins. It hurts a Pakistani mother to see her child die in her arms just as much as it would hurt an English mother. This issue deserves far greater attention than some of the other issues which have taken more of the time of the House and greater space in the newspapers.
Like my hon. Friends, I utterly condemn the West Pakistan Government's actions. Seven million people, men, women and children, do not flee without reason. When we go to see the High Commissioner, he says, "Well, they panicked". Of course they panicked. They panicked for good reason. The removal of the West Pakistan Army from East Pakistan is the essential factor necessary to end suffering.
I want to say something now about the Indian Government. Most of us are lost in admiration over what it has done to succour the wounded and the hungry despite the colossal problems it faces, particularly in this area. But there is a growing clamour inside India, unfortunately, for military action. At first it was a few extremists but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) tells me that when he was there this view was shared by a large number of Parliamentarians.
In yesterday's Guardian, a man of peace, its former cartoonist Abu, writing from India, said things which shocked me. He said:
Until recently I had believed that India should try and come to terms with Pakistan, though its political system is different from ours. I no longer think it is desirable, even if it is possible.
I understand this feeling but I think it is tragically mistaken. The Pakistan propagandist hand-outs which some of us get every day record firing across the frontier and Pakistan villages being set on fire. I raised this with the Indian authorities and they said, "Well, it is retaliation". I think there is a little more


than this in it because there is this regrettable pressure on the Indian Government from people who should know better than to have recourse to military action. There is tremendous pressure on Mrs. Gandhi and the Foreign Secretary, which they have so far resisted, to take military action.
I ask this question, through the House to the Indian people: would war help the refugees and those inside West Pakistan? Everyone knows that they are suffering from the monsoon, living in the open, homeless, wounded, hungry and diseased. If, to all of this, war was added in which they would be the victims—Pakistanis on both sides of the frontier—it would be the greatest calamity of our time.
Will the Foreign Secretary appeal to Mrs. Gandhi to resist this clamour and will he raise at the United Nations the question of supplying observers on both sides so that this war does not take place?
On the question of relief, Oxfam had a brilliant field director out there, Mr. Alan Leather. He concluded his report with these words:
Without a massive relief operation financed and assisted by the United Nations through the Indian Government, the world is facing one of the most tragic disasters of all ime.
I hope that both on the war danger and on the starvation issue we shall have some valuable pronouncement from the Government.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you the very serious fact that there are a considerable number of hon. Members who have sat here all day with various problems to raise in the traditional manner, but who will, if the present procedure is adhered to, have no opportunity of raising these matters. Why is it that this debate must finish at five o'clock when normally, on a day other than the day of the Adjournment, when the debate begins at 3.30 p.m. it proceeds without limit or until such time as the Government Chief Whip tries to move the Closure? Even then he can only attempt to move it and it is in the hands of the Chair whether the Motion shall be accepted. Why should the procedure be different today? Is there any justification for it——

Mr. Speaker: I think I can help the hon. Gentleman. It is not my fault; it is because the House decided last Friday that this should be the procedure.

Mr. Mendelson: That was my second point of order. We cannot let this matter pass without protest. There are many hon. Members who will not in future allow the executive to move the Motion so that the debate takes place only on the last day. There should be an extension of the debate even today. The Leader of the House should co-operate with hon. Members who have been here all day. The debates should be continued beyond five o'clock by agreement so that every hon. Member who has been here all day and who has important representations to make in the time-honoured way guaranteed to back-bench Members can make them.

Mr. Speaker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not a matter of order. The matter has been decided by the House. I do not, however, think that the form of this debate should be regarded as a precedent. Because this Motion was taken today, there has been a certain untidiness in the debate, but there is nothing that we can do about it now within the rules of order.

3.46 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The decision to take the Motion today was welcomed and accepted last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who pointed out the precedents for this course, which was taken by his own Government. I recognise that it is an exceptional process, and I would not wish it to be repeated. I point out to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), for whom I have great sympathy, that this debate has continued for much longer than perhaps any other debate on a similar Motion that we have had for a long time. I have, quite deliberately, sat here throughout every speech. I have allowed myself the minimum amount of time in which to reply in order to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak. I think that it is reasonable for me to point out those facts.
I have allowed myself so little time in which to reply that perhaps I shall not answer some points as fully as I should


have done. If so, I undertake to look at them myself, and they will be referred to my right hon. Friends concerned. I will do my best to reply to the major points which have been made.
I wish first to deal with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He explained that he might not be able to be present to hear my reply, and I fully accept that. He asked me for an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be ready to consider alternative proposals, which he made clear when he was in Glasgow he was ready to do. I can readily give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. Friend will be ready to consider any proposals put to him.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to a visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Scotland. I shall ensure that his remarks are passed to my right hon. Friend, who I know will carefully consider what was said.
I turn to that part of the debate which occupied the most time—and one can fully understand why—namely, the situation in Northern Ireland. We have heard important speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull (Mr. McNamara), and the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
I have, in basic terms of anything new to say, obviously nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, but I think I am entitled as a member of the Cabinet who have to look at this desperately difficult situation simply to put to the House my own personal reflections on some of the things said in the debate and how the Government and I personally see this very grave problem. No one will deny how grave it is.
No one, I think it fair to say, can produce a perfect solution which does not pose many other grave difficulties,

whichever way one looks at it. I was very glad, however, to note points of agreement amongst many disagreements in this House. There was an almost unanimous desire to condemn violence from wherever it came. It was not wholly unanimous, and that I regret, but it was almost unanimous, and I believe that that was very important. There were also widespread tributes to the good work of our British troops in Northern Ireland. I thought them very good.
I also noted what I think was an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon when he said that the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, of all communities there—are entitled to some message from the Government in London and from this House since having our troops there in Northern Ireland is our responsibility. I feel so strongly about this that I would like to say this personally: let there be no doubt at all by anyone in Northern Ireland that the British Government, working with the Government of Stormont, will do everything in their power to root out terrorism and stop violence from wherever it may come. Our clear, plain objective, as it must be for the Government and this House, is to do everything in our power to ensure that the people of all communities in Northern Ireland can go about their normal lives and their normal business in peace and without fear. I think that that is a reasonable statement to make from this House and from the Government at this time.
Perhaps I may now turn to the very important problem of the situation in East Pakistan.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of Northern Ireland, I would refer to the demonstration on 12th August. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to convey to the Prime Minister the very strong feelings expressed on this subject so that a decision may be made through the Security Committee that this demonstration, which would be provocative, does not take place? He has said nothing about it.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, and the hon. Gentleman has used up time I wanted to apply to other hon. Gentlemen's questions. He knows well that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary heard perfectly


clearly the views expressed on both sides of the House on this very important matter, including some very important points by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary heard these matters—all of them—and they will be taken into very careful consideration, I say advisedly, by all those concerned.
Now perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to turn to the important matter of East Pakistan, which causes very great anxiety, and rightly and properly—and I rather sympathise with the views on this matter of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). This matter was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Brain). He was supported by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), and the hon. Member for Salford, East. They asked, all of them, for various assurances, first of all, from the Government on the question of what were the opportunities for a political settlement and, secondly, on aid.
Perhaps I should say first of all that certainly there is no change as far as aid policy is concerned from what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said recently. I give that assurance. It is, of course, always difficult in this matter to state publicly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made so clear, exactly what action may be taken by the Government in the direction which I believe everyone in this House, and, indeed, in this country, would wish to see.
I take fully the point made by the right hon. Member for Wednesbury that there are many people in the world who expect Britain to do its utmost in this matter, and who rely on what Britain can do. We are in close contact with the United Nations, the Governments of India and Pakistan and other Governments on many of the difficult issues that are raised. I give an absolute assurance that the fact that Parliament is in the Summer Recess, provided this Motion is passed, will in no way diminish the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to work for and to support any

efforts towards a political settlement which would make possible the return of the refugees. Indeed, the Government are perfectly prepared to consider requests for further aid relief and to play their full part in any aid work that is carried out through the United Nations organisations.
The right hon. Member for Lanark asked about money for the voluntary organisations. I have done my best in the short time available to get her the answer, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development saw Mr. Kirkley of Oxfam yesterday and is in touch with the charities. He appreciates the point made by the right hon. Lady and will seek to pursue it.
I hope that these, inevitably rather general, assurances on a very difficult issue, will do much to make the House as a whole feel that the Government will continue to do everything in their power to play the part which this House would expect of a British Government both in the matter of aid and towards a political settlement of this difficult and dangerous situation.
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) mentioned the probation service. I have noted what he said, but he would not expect me to say anything further when negotiations are continuing. I have already tried to help the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on his various points.
I will turn to a more general matter, which is important in the context of the different questions which have been put to me—the possible recall of the House. I give exactly the same assurances as have always been given by Governments in the past. The provisions for the recall of the House at short notice, should the public interest so require, are clearly embodied in Standing Order No. 122. Under that Standing Order the Government have the duty of advising Mr. Speaker if they feel that the House should be recalled. I give an absolute undertaking that the Government will, of course, be prepared to consider all the representations which may be made to them on any of the matters which have been raised. These are assurances which have always been given by all Governments, and I gladly repeat them today.
In answer to those who feel that this Motion should not have been taken today, this is, as I said, exceptional procedure on this occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition accepted that it was. I would not wish it to be regarded as a precedent, and I will try to make different arrangements on other occasions. I note the feelings of the House on that subject. It is fair to point out that there has been a longer period on this occasion.
If in what I have said in answer to the long debate on Northern Ireland I have shown that perhaps I, too, have some feelings on this important matter, then at

Resolved,
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn till Monday 18th October.

Mr. SPEAKER thereupon adjourned the House till Monday, 18th October, without

least it will show that sometimes the Leader of the House has an opportunity to make clear the sort of feelings he is entitled to have. People sometimes feel that inside this large frame nothing else exists at all, and therefore it is reasonable to point out at this time, before we rise for the Summer Recess, that perhaps there is something up above and down below.

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER pursuant to the Resolution [30th July], proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Motion relating to Adjournment (Summer) :—

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 23.

Division No. 476.]
AYES
[5 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Homsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bray, Ronald
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Spence, John


Channon, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Coombs, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Corfield Rt. Hn. Frederick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Cormack Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Drayson, G. B.
Mather, Carol
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle
Woodnutt, Mark


Fox, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Green, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grylls, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Stallard, A. W.


Ashton, Joe
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Gerald
Tuck, Raphael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Mikardo, Ian



Driberg, Tom
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann and Mr. Arthur Lewis.


Freeson, Reginald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

putting any further Question, pursuant to the Resolution of 30th July.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Five o'clock.